VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 2006
Legislative Assembly Chamber
Parliament House
Melbourne
9 October 2006
Topic:
The Australian government’s antiterrorism legislation is undemocratic. It should be repealed.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
1
Chair: Ms Mary Gillett, MLA, Victorian Parliament
Welcome: Ms Anne Barker, MLA, Victorian Parliament
Topic introduction: Judge Elizabeth Gaynor, County Court, Melbourne
The campaign:
[For]
Mr Mark Taft, barrister, Melbourne
[For]
Mr Philip Barker, public debates officer, University of Melbourne Debating Society
[Against]
Mr Des Moore, Director, Institute for Private Enterprise
[Against]
Mr James Paterson, Young Liberal Movement of Australia (Victorian division)
Delegates
Ella ADAMS, University High School
Emily EVANS, Fintona Girls School
Ambika AGNIHOTRI, Westbourne Grammar
School
Jack FAINE, University High School
Jed ANDREWS, St Patricks College
Khaled FERGUSON, Australian International
Academy
Saad ASSAAD, Australian International Academy
Virgina, FILOPOULOUS
Madeliene AUSTIN, Elwood College
Ashley-Mathieu FRENKEN, Melbourne High
School
Tom BALLARD, Brauer College
Matthew FRIZZELL, Notre Dame College
Luke BAMPTON, Mazenod College
Lucienne GALEA, Taylors Lakes Secondary College
Jillian BEALE, Caulfield Grammar
Ellie GREATOREX, Fintona Girls School
Peter BLAKE, Bairnsdale Secondary College
Andrew GREEN, St Patricks College
Cecily BLAKEY, Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar
School
Ruth HAMBLING, University High School
Andrea BOJCETIC, Lalor Secondary College
Hilary HARDEFELDT, University High School
Samantha BOMBOS, Westbourne Grammar School
John HEARN, St Patricks College
Alison BROWNING, University High School
Jesse HEATH, Melbourne High School
Michayla BUSH, Wanganui College
Mark HOLMES, Lalor Secondary College
Miriam CONRICK, University High School
Kayte JAMA, Northcote High School
Ellie COOPER, Fintona Girls School
Slavco JOVANOSKI, University High School
Christopher CORNESCHI, Thomastown Secondary
College
Meg KELLY, Notre Dame College
Sally CROUCH, Caulfield Grammar
Oliver KHOURY, Swinburne Senior Secondary
College
Erin D’AGOSTINO, Lalor North Secondary College
Tyrone LIU, Balwyn High School
Matthew DALY, Mazenod College
Zoe MARKOPOULOUS, Lalor Secondary College
Claire EATS, Baimbridge College
Thembane MASHIYA, Bairnsdale Secondary
College
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
2
Emmanuel MBALA, Thomastown Secondary
College
Robert RAHIMOVSKI, Lalor North Secondary
College
Nina McDOWELL, Westbourne Grammar School
Jane RAM, Lalor Secondary College
Emma McKENZIE, Bairnsdale Secondary College
Andrew RENATO, Notre Dame College
Lyle McLEAM, Cann River P-12 College
Jessica RICHARD, Strathcona Baptist Girls
Grammar School
Cynthia MECHALAANI, Antonine College
Nadine SAOUD, Antonine College
Chloe MEKKEN, Orbost Secondary College
Shugha SATARI, Australian International Academy
Daniel MILES, Westbourne Grammar School
Nathan SEGAL, Koonung Secondary College
James MILNER, Elwood College
Jaspreet SINGH, Taylors Lakes Secondary College
Brwa MOHAMMED, Thomastown Secondary
College
Celia MURRAY, Fintona Girls School
Noni SPROULE, Northcote High School
Jessica STOJKOVSKI, Westbourne Grammar
School
Donny NGUYEN, Thomastown Secondary College
Nuradan TABAK, Australian International Academy
Ana NIKOLOVSKA, Lalor North Secondary
College
Kalani THOMAS, Caulfield Grammar
James OLDFIELD, Wanganui College
Jessica WALDEN, Elwood College
Ryan PEREGRINE, Elwood College
Clara WARD, Baimbridge College
Mounica PINNINTI, Lalor North Secondary College
Sasha WILMOTH, Caulfield Grammar
Johana RADI, Antonine College
Robert WOJNAR, Mazenod College
Azbja-azi RAHIMOVSKI, Lalor North Secondary
College
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
2
Welcome and introduction
The CHAIR (Ms GILLETT) — Good morning and welcome everybody. My name is Mary Gillett. I am
the member for Tarneit, which is out Werribee way, the Parliamentary Secretary for Women’s Affairs and the
Parliamentary Secretary for Commonwealth Games. It is my pleasure to be here to help you today to have a
wonderful and lively discussion and debate about a most important topic. But without further ado, I introduce my
friend and colleague and Parliamentary Secretary for Training and Higher Education, Ann Barker.
Ms BARKER (Oakleigh) — Thank you very much, Chair. I have to say before I start, I am not that used
to standing here at this chair, and to be somewhere near the Premier’s chair is a first for me. I am not quite used to
the microphone, but I will get it.
Officially, to Mary Gillett, the member for Tarneit and chair of the convention, to our speakers arguing for and
against in the debate — Judge Liz Gaynor, Mr Des Moore, Mr Mark Taft, Mr James Paterson and Mr Philip
Barker — members of the Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention planning committee, teachers, parents and
student delegates, I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are
meeting today, the Wurundjeri people. In keeping with a tradition of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, I
acknowledge their unique culture and the important role that indigenous people have played in the life of this
region.
I am very delighted and honoured to be here to open the Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention 2006. These
conventions provide young people from across Victoria with a wonderful opportunity to get together and to share
ideas and opinions on the political and social issues that affect us all. Across the various regions and now at the
state level you have the opportunity to air your views and hear the views of others. Just to emphasise how important
an occasion this is today, the proceedings will be reported as though the Victorian Parliament were in session. The
Hansard reporters, whom you will see just up at the back, are official parliamentary reporters, and persons
extraordinaire, having made sense of everything else that is said in this place — not by you but by the members of
Parliament. They are here to report what each of you has to say in this chamber. I understand every state member of
Parliament will have access to the record of these proceedings, and I know they will read it with interest.
As you know the theme of this year’s state convention is: should the antiterrorism legislation be amended or
abolished? It is a theme that is very much in the news, and I am sure I do not need to tell you that. I understand you
have all received copies of background papers outlining some of the arguments for and against the legislation, and I
hope that material helps you to form your views. You will be finding out at first hand some of the ways in which
governments work as you focus on a theme that is obviously of great importance.
As well as being a matter of concern to the general public, this is an issue high on the agendas of both federal and
state governments. Tighter security at airports, public events and in public buildings is a daily reminder of the
vigilance that is needed to safeguard the community. As we know only too well, Australians have been the targets
and have been victims of terrorism. The bombings in Bali, Indonesia and the London Underground are salient
reminders of the intentions of terrorists. With these events in mind and with greater attention to border control,
migration and citizenship, the notion of what constitutes a free and democratic Australia has been at the centre of
much recent debate and discussion.
With increased security comes the question of rights: what rights are we prepared to give up? It is interesting to
note that while the Australian Capital Territory has a Human Rights Act, Victoria is the first Australian state, as
distinct from a territory, to enshrine human rights in one act of Parliament. The Victorian Charter of Human Rights
and Responsibilities will take effect from 1 January 2007. This charter protects basic human rights, such as freedom
of speech, freedom of association and protection from cruel and degrading treatment.
It will be interesting to place today’s topic in the context of this act. The speakers you will be hearing come from a
wide range of backgrounds and will offer you equally wide-ranging views and ideas for consideration later in your
small group discussions. Please do not hesitate to ask speakers the important questions, even if the answers are not
easy in coming.
The threat of terrorism and the laws and conditions under which governments can best protect citizens are critical
issues that require careful and intelligent consideration. By participating in this debate and making
recommendations on behalf of young people you will be affirming our ideals about democracy, equality, freedom
of speech and social justice. I feel sure that you will also be inspired by debating and hearing the debate in this
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
2
historic building where we are gathered today. Many of you may know, but some of you may not, that this
Parliament House is the only building in Australia that has hosted a colonial Parliament, a state Parliament and a
federal Parliament. The federal Parliament was held in this building for more than 20 years, from 1901 to 1927
prior to the first Parliament House being built in Canberra. Back then federal members of Parliament would have
sat in the seats you are occupying now, and in sitting in those seats they made many of the decisions that created
the Australian nation that we know today. Now, of course — not again for a little while; we have actually risen —
state members of Parliament deliberate in this same chamber, making the same vital decisions and laws that affect
our lives as Victorian citizens. Today in your deliberations remember you are sitting in a place where historic
decisions have been made and continue to be made.
The schools constitutional convention is an important forum for the youth of Victoria and one of the peak events on
the civics and citizenship education calendar. Some 40 secondary schools from the Catholic, independent and
government sectors, from rural and regional Victoria as well as metropolitan Melbourne are here today. The
convention promises to be a wide-ranging, stimulating and highly productive forum. You can all ensure its success
by listening, by contributing to the debate, by respectfully challenging the views of others and by giving your
fellow students an equal chance to have their say.
It is the responsibility of all here today to contribute to the success of this convention, and it is just as important that
when you leave here at the end of the day you think about the best ways of telling your school friends, your family,
your school generally and the local community about this issue.
I would like to thank the state planning committee and the teachers from the host schools of the regional
conventions for their very hard work in organising this event and similar events in your local areas throughout
Victoria. Now I am sure you are looking forward to this very interesting day, during which you can start the
important debate and a very challenging parliamentary session. The other thing I hope you will consider after
today’s convention is that you will apply to be a Victorian delegate at the national convention in Canberra in March
next year. I think that would be a very important step to take. I wish you very well in your deliberations. I thank
very much our speakers for today. I am sure that they will provide you with some very informative, interesting and
stimulating ideas to go on with. I thank you again for the privilege of being here to open the convention, and again I
wish you well. Thank you very much.
The CHAIR — It is a great privilege to have Ann here with us as the Parliamentary Secretary for Training
and Higher Education. Ann, you are welcome to stay with us for as long or as little as you can. We are going to
move delegates into the introduction of the topic. We are privileged to have with us today County Court Judge Liz
Gaynor. I just want to remind you that the purpose of the introduction is to provide you with an overview of the key
issues and considerations you need to keep in mind when listening to all of our speakers and when you are working
later in your discussion groups. If you keep the ideas that you have gained from your pre-convention reading in
your mind, it will help you to sort the facts from the opinions when you listen to today’s speakers and decide upon
your personal position on the issue. It is about keeping an open mind and listening to everything that you are going
to be told by the speakers.
I introduce to all delegates County Court Judge Liz Gaynor. Judge Elizabeth Gaynor graduated with an arts-law
degree from Melbourne University in 1978. After completing her articles Judge Gaynor worked for the Australian
Associated Press as a journalist, covering general, industrial, police, court and state rounds. She also did a stint in
Canberra as a parliamentary reporter — and I take my hat off to her for that! Returning to law in 1983 Judge
Gaynor spent time with Victoria Legal Aid as a duty solicitor at the Prahran Magistrates Court and the Children’s
Court at Melbourne, Dandenong, Springvale and Ringwood. In June 1985 Judge Gaynor signed the Victorian bar
roll and commenced a criminal trial defence practice lasting for 17 years. Judge Gaynor was appointed to the
County Court bench in 2002, and we look forward to her contribution with great interest.
Judge GAYNOR — Now that you know I finished university in 1978 you have all worked out that I am
about 345 years old! It is terribly depressing hearing your CV read out when you get to my age because everything
seems so long ago. I have teenage children, and they spend their time going, ‘Were you really born in 1955 like the
cars that were invented then?’. I am sure you have done the same thing to your parents. Whenever I have to address
teenagers, as I often do, I try to cover the immediate ground. I am sure you all think, as I remember thinking at your
age — although I know none of you are particularly young; everyone here is at least at year 11 — how is this
person going to be of any assistance to us; she is so old? I am happy to tell you that my job today is not to talk
about the rights or the wrongs or the arguments for and against of this issue; what I am talking about today is the
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
3
overview and what you need to look out for when you are considering what is an incredibly important topic. It is
such a subtle and interesting topic.
The antiterrorism bill is basically what you would call a war-time bill. The reason it is a war-time bill is that it is
moving to take away some of the fundamental rights that attach to any person you may meet in our community.
They are ancient rights, and they always apply. In a society like ours the only time that they do not is in a war
situation. Traditionally that has been the case. George Bush, the American President, says we are facing a war on
terrorism. What is interesting about that in your considering the questions that you have to today is, no. 1, are we at
war? It is not a conventional war. It is not as if England has declared war on Germany for invading Poland, as
happened with the Second World War, and everybody joins the army and goes off and fights.
It is what you would call a subtle war. It might not be said that terrorist bombings such as we saw on September 11
or in Bali or in Spain are subtle, but there is no formal declaration of war, there is no conventional war as we know
it. What we do know is there is hostility between certain parts of certain movements towards other countries to
which we might feel we belong in more a social sense, such as America. However, is there a state of crisis such that
we should give up fundamental rights that normally would apply to every citizen?
A very fundamental right that is affected by this legislation is one that was brought about in the 1100s with King
John — the evil King John you always see with Robin Hood, who was seen as always busy oppressing the Saxons.
He got to be king after Richard I died. He was a very oppressive king of England. There were so many abuses
against so many people, including the noblemen who normally were not affected, that ultimately he was presented
with what was probably the first bill of rights — the Magna Carta — where they said, ‘Listen, King John, if you
want to stay on the throne, baby, you have to abide by a few rules’. They are fundamental rules that have been
enshrined in our law ever since.
One which I think is incredibly important is that you cannot be detained in a jail unless you have been charged with
a criminal offence. You might think that is pretty obvious but if you do not have that, if you do not have a system
whereby you cannot go to jail unless you are charged, than the government of the day, the king of the day, the ruler
of the day can pick you up off the street and say, ‘I do not like you, you are in jail’.
What is really important about having to face a charge is that it must be supported by evidence. There are all sorts
of protections that go down the line behind that fundamental principle that you cannot be detained without charge.
If you are only able to detained on a charge, you presume that at some stage you are going to have to face a court.
The question of whether or not you are guilty of that charge has to be resolved so a whole lot of processes get put in
place and all those processes mean you cannot languish in jail indefinitely at the whim of whoever is in power at
the time. That is a fundamental rule.
The Anti-terrorism Act interferes with that. It does not mean you are going to languish in jail forever, but it does
mean you can be held without charge, a fundamental rule. This rule is not new. A good example is during the
Second World War persons who were deemed to be close enough to the enemy force, for example, if you were
Japanese — there were large numbers of Japanese living in Hawaii in the Second World War and they were able,
under laws that were passed just because they were Japanese, to be interned in camps where they were held for the
duration of the war. The irony is many of those who were interned in camps had sons fighting in the war for
America.
What happens with legislation like the Anti-terrorism Act is there are classes of people who are said to be of so
much danger to our society that fundamental rights that would normally attach to any citizen in our society are
removed and detention is one of them. The other one is, for example, knowing what you are charged with. That
might seem obvious as well. The author who is always quoted in relation to something like this is Kafka because he
has this terrible book called The Trial where a man is held and is charged and he never knows what he is charged
with. It is like a nightmare that goes on and on.
Here, under the antiterrorism legislation, a person may be placed under a control order where they may or may not
do certain things, where they may or may not go to certain places, and they need not be told why that order has
been placed upon them. Again, that is premised on the view that a class of persons is operating in a region of crisis,
if you like, in an atmosphere of crisis such that that fundamental right that normally we all enjoy — that is, the right
to know with what you are charged, what is the basis for a restrictive order like a control order against you — has
been removed.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
4
What you are being asked today is about the fear which we all experienced after 9/11, which we all experience after
some random bombing somewhere because there is nothing more terrifying than the suicide bomber — because the
suicide bomber cannot be rationalised; the suicide bomber is a fanatic, and we all fear fanatics. The fear that we feel
at these attacks around the world is justified to such a degree that we interfere with fundamental laws preserving
our rights. That is what you are looking at today. It is very interesting.
As I said, what you are examining it is that we fear. Is there a war? Is there an enemy out there? Will the removal of
fundamental rights protect us from this rather nebulous, shadowy enemy out there? Who is the enemy? Is the
enemy close enough to us to do this? Or is it a situation where he might not be close enough now but that is only
because we have laws in place to make sure he is not?
The other thing you need to remember when you are looking at the opinions on either side is, as I said before,
usually where you have legislation like the Anti-terrorism Act it is aimed at a class of people. I see we have two
young ladies here from perhaps the very class of people who might be most affected by our fear of what is
happening around the globe, in that it is seen to be representative of a religion that is not traditionally one we follow
in this country.
Traditionally, and it is a matter of accident, our country has had a Christian religion dominating its activities. Islam
can be seen as very foreign, very strange, something in itself to be feared. Then you have a situation where the
young men or the young women who offer to be suicide bombers do so in the name of Allah. Are they
representative of all Islam? You can compare that with the situation in Ireland some years ago with the Irish
Republican Army.
The IRA was seen to be representative of the Catholic Church, so if you were Catholic in Northern Ireland, you
suffered. Exactly the same sorts of rights were removed from citizens in Northern Ireland, for the same reason —
because it was adjudged that the society there was so threatened. There were some dreadful bombings — the
Armagh bombing killed hundreds of people. They were random. It was the same sort of random violence carried
out by fanatics.
On the one hand we have to look at our needing protection from this apprehended violence, this apprehended threat
to our security; but on the other side how far do we go in protecting that? Has this bill gone so far or is it a perfectly
legitimate and justified way of going about this? The other problem is how do you assess it? We saw September 11.
We all saw the planes flying into the buildings. We all saw the twin towers collapse and the dreadful films. We see
the results.
We hear our politicians react, we hear our press react and we are affected by how they react, but is their reaction a
true reflection of what has gone on? What lay behind those bombings? I read somewhere in the materials I was
given about a Mr Duffy in federal Parliament who got up and said these sorts of activities are taking place just
because of the way we live our lives.
They were words to that effect: something about the only reason that these terrorism attacks are happening is
simply that Islam objects to the way we live our lives. Some people might regard that as a perfectly rational and
realistic response to what is going on. Other people might think it is ridiculous. It is certainly an opinion, and all the
time you have to be careful when you are given this material to work out what is opinion and what is fact. Even if it
comes from someone extraordinarily high up, if I can put it that way — from someone in authority; from the Prime
Minister, or the President of the USA — do you accept what George Bush says, that there is a war on terror and we
are at war? Do you accept that the situation is in fact a war? You may well accept that it is. It may not be a
conventional war. It certainly involves forces from one side going in and seeking to wreak great havoc and damage
on another community. Does that amount to a war in your view?
But even with George Bush, that is his reaction and that is his opinion. You might read something from a respected
journalist, but it is still his interpretation and his opinion, so it is always very difficult when you are looking at these
materials to work out what is opinion and what is fact, what you accept and what you reject. Always the question
is: we have fear, and there is good reason for that fear, but to what degree should it reach before we take away
fundamental rights? Do we agree that the fundamental rights that have been removed are rights that for the proper
protection of our society should take place? As I said, it is a difficult question.
I told you before about the Japanese who were interned in camps in Hawaii. Afterwards people said, ‘What a
terrible thing that these people had to live in camps during the war’. Of course those were the days when very often
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
5
men were the breadwinners and families would be left destitute if they were left without their fathers. It would have
an enormous effect on how a family functioned and on kids. There would be a terrible stigma attached to it, and
would be extremely ironic that all these things would happen to people whose children were off fighting for the
very country that kept them in a camp. Yet it would be said that in the circumstances it was justified because it
could be expected that persons who were what you would call a German nationals, for example, in World War I —
that is, they were German and had emigrated here and were not sufficiently far down the generation trail to escape
that sort of provision — or someone from Japan in the same situation. It would be said that they were persons who
could potentially harm our cause and should be interned for our own safety. That is probably a good example.
I keep hearing these whistling noises, so I assume that my time is nearly up. Those are the things that you have to
take into account, always remembering that fear is a very volatile force. It can spread like the bubonic plague, and it
can reach the proportions of a bubonic plague. Usually it requires a target — usually we need to demonise
someone. Sometimes that demonising is perfectly justified, but at other times it is an overreaction. In my view, as I
said, you need to look at the basis for this legislation. You need to ask, ‘What are we scared of, and does it amount
to a fear which then justifies what has taken place by the passing of this legislation?’. That is what the speakers are
going to talk to you about today. Thank you very much. I hope you have a great day. Unfortunately I have to go
back to court.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Liz.
Delegates, we now move into the debate involving our four speakers. The speakers will have 7 minutes, which
apparently is to be strictly enforced by me, to talk to you about their position, about why they hold the views that
they do, and they will be doing everything they can in their 7 minutes to convince you of the correctness of their
view. After they have made their contributions you will have the opportunity to ask questions of any them. You can
ask questions to clarify something you did not understand or challenge what any of the speakers had to say. I ask
that you address your questions to one speaker, who will have only 1 minute in which to answer your question,
which means hopefully we will get loads and loads of your questions to the speakers.
Without further ado, I ask Des Moore to kick off for us. Des is a graduate in law from Melbourne University — is
the Melbourne uni mafia here; you are, well and truly, aren’t you all? — and in economics from the London School
of Economics. Des held the position of deputy secretary in the commonwealth Treasury before joining the Institute
of Public Affairs as a senior fellow. In 2001 he was appointed to the board of the Australian Strategic Policy
Institute, which provides advice to the Australian government on defence and strategic issues. He is currently
director of his own think tank, the Institute for Private Enterprise. Delegates, please welcome Des Moore.
Mr MOORE — Thank you, Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I start by asking whether those
in favour of the motion are reluctant to speak first in support of it. My colleague James Paterson will address the
issue of democracy. I will concentrate mainly on why additional criminal legislation was passed in 2005 to create
offences and procedures before a terrorist act is committed. Previous legislation dealt largely with offences after an
act of terrorism had been completed, such as hijacking an aircraft.
Although the government has not justified the legislation because of actions or threats from any single group, it has
undoubtedly been influenced by an increased realisation of the very serious threat from one particular group to a
large number of ordinary citizens. Various recent events have contributed to the recognition that this threat
emanates from an extremist Islamic ideology seeking to establish a theocratic state operating under sharia law,
which could apply to a wide range of behaviour. Nobody knows how many Islamic terror groups there are, but they
are not just a few. Assessments by security agencies suggest the threat is extensive and may be increasing.
One-quarter of the British Muslim community supported the London suicide bomb attack. A similar proportion in
Australia would imply that there are 100 000 supporters here of Islamic terrorism. The extremity of the threat has
rightly moved Australia and other countries into a completely new era of criminal law and its enforcement. Two
words to describe the changed objectives are ‘prevention, prevention, prevention’ and ‘protection, protection,
protection’.
The antiterrorism legislation is not directed against Muslims but against terrorists using what the Prime Minister
recently described as ‘a perverted interpretation of Islam’. Such terrorist groups include numbers who are prepared
to kill themselves simply to kill thousands of others, including fellow Muslims. They also include many who are
prepared to provide assistance or silent support.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
6
Some in our community acknowledge Islamic terrorism as a serious crime, but because of the potential
impingement on traditional individual liberties they oppose the use of different and tougher rules and procedures
than apply to normal criminal activity. But it is essential to have separate legal box embracing different rules
dealing with terrorist acts and threats. As the head of the Attorney-General’s department recently pointed out,
traditional offences would not easily have covered preparatory terrorist acts, and some would have not been
covered at all. A separate legal box is needed partly because the extent of the terrorist aims threatens potential
damage to our institutions and legal systems, not to mention our freedoms.
It is also needed because the methods used to achieve the aims do not simply involve violence, but extreme and
widespread violence. Indeed, the violence is applied indiscriminately, including to fellow Muslims. Does anyone
seriously believe such violence should be treated the same as ordinary crime, even murder?
Moreover, although one aim of the punishment for ordinary crime is to deter others, deterrence is irrelevant to
Islamic terrorism, and the potential large number of victims reinforces the need for police to have additional powers
and procedures so they can act early before a terrorist act.
There has been one terrorism conviction in Australia. In its overturning of another conviction the court found there
was no question with respect to the truthfulness or reliability of statements judged inadmissible on technical
grounds. In a TV interview after that remarkable court decision, the person charged admitted his guilt. Nine men
have also been charged in Sydney of preparatory terrorist acts, and 13 have been committed to stand trial in
Melbourne with varying charges.
None of this is to say that Islamic terrorism justifies any response that might be thought up. However, control
orders under the anti-terrorism legislation are not significantly different to orders applying in cases with normal
apprehended violence, and parole orders for paedophiles restrict their movements and contacts. Such control orders
are also subject to safeguards. Safeguards also apply to obtaining an order under the new preventative detention
regime. The main existing risk is that the various safeguards may not allow sufficient flexibility to police and
intelligence services, particularly in regard to the interrogation of suspects.
In conclusion, the basic need is to take full account of the civil rights of ordinary citizens to life and limb and to
choice in how to live. As British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, pointed out recently, the issue:
… is not an argument about whether we respect civil liberties or not, but whose take priority. It is not about choosing hard-line policies
over an individual’s rights. It’s about which human rights prevail.
Tony’s wife is, of course, a human rights lawyer. I recommend any supporters of this motion to read his speech in
full. Thank you.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Des.
Mr MOORE — Madam Chair, for those interested I have copies of my statement, or a longer version of
my statement, if anybody wants to pick one up.
The CHAIR — Thank you, Des; we will make those available.
Delegates, I now introduce the lead speaker in favour of the proposition, Mr Mark Taft. Thank goodness, Mark was
educated at Monash University and is a former editor of the student newspaper Lot’s Wife!. Mark has been a
barrister since 1989 and specialises in criminal and disciplinary proceedings. He has acted for both the defence and
the prosecution. In 2005 and 2006 he represented Jack Thomas during his very well-publicised criminal trial.
Mr Thomas was the first Australian to be jailed under the Australian government’s anti-terrorism legislation, but
has subsequently had his conviction quashed. He has the other attribute of being the first Australian citizen to be
operating under a control order.
Mark is also a constituent of mine. He has three sons who have been educated at Melbourne High School and the
youngest of whom is in year 12 — and I sympathise, Mark; so is mine. Welcome, Mark.
Mr TAFT — Welcome. Terrorism is the targeting of civilians to achieve a political goal. Let us be quite
clear: those who commit or plan terrorist acts can and should be prosecuted.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
7
Jack Roche, from Western Australia, who conspired to bomb the Israeli embassy, was successfully prosecuted and
convicted under existing laws. As you know, we have many new laws. These harsh new laws have little to do with
preventing terrorism. Nine/eleven did not occur because the laws were too soft; 9/11 occurred because of a failure
of intelligence and analysis. These harsh new laws, I suggest, are all about politics and being seen to be tough.
Jack Thomas came from Williamstown. He converted to Islam and he undertook a basic military training camp in
conventional warfare in Afghanistan. It was a Taliban camp. He trained in that camp for about three months in
2001. At that stage the Taliban was recognised as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by many nations, and
controlled about 90 per cent of the territory. The Taliban had been armed and funded by the west, and was fighting
the Russian-backed Northern Alliance. Al-Qaeda supported the Taliban, although it had a separate organisational
structure. Thomas was arrested in January 2003 and interrogated by Americans, Pakistanis, Australians and others.
He provided much information.
He returned to Australia and lived with his family in the community for nearly 18 months, without committing any
offence. During that period Thomas continued to help Australian authorities. He was then charged and placed in the
Acacia Unit at Barwon Prison. In that prison he was locked up for most of the day. He was denied any physical
contact with his wife and family. Visits were conducted through perspex panels. Thomas was permitted 1 hour
direct contact with his children once per month.
Thirteen other people are in such a position at the moment. Thomas was acquitted by a jury of the two most serious
charges that he faced. The Court of Appeal has quashed the convictions on two other charges because of the
circumstances in which he was questioned. For Mr Moore to suggest that was a technical decision is an absurdity.
The cornerstone of our criminal law is that admissions must be voluntary.
A week after his convictions were set aside the Attorney-General approved an application by the Australian Federal
Police for control orders. Control orders were introduced in 2005. They were justified as needed to meet an
immediate threat, but it was not until August 2006 that Thomas was chosen as the first target. The effect of a
control order is freedoms being restricted without a person having been charged or found guilty of an offence.
Was there any genuine need to seek an urgent control order by making an application late on a Friday afternoon in
a secret session in a Federal Court? The first Thomas knew about it was when he was informed by police who
arrived in Gippsland, where he was holidaying.
My argument is simple: in combating terrorism we must not surrender to the values of terrorism. We stand for a
legal system which protects liberty and presumes innocence until a finding of guilt by a jury. If the rule of law is
watered down, then the terrorists have won. There is a big difference between people who say foolish or even
loathsome things and those who actually plan or commit terrorist acts. If we conduct terrorist trials against young
Muslim men who say foolish things, then we have surrendered to fear and have allowed the law to become a tool
for political gain.
All of us must beware of demonising people who have different appearances or different views. The test of our
legal system is how we treat people who support unpopular causes. For the most part I suggest that the raft of
terrorism legislation is unnecessary and, even worse, such laws have strengthened rather than weakened the
position of extremists within the Islamic community. Thank you.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much, Mark. It is now my pleasure to introduce to you James Paterson.
James is a member of the Victorian Young Liberal Policy Committee and the president of the Caulfield Young
Liberals. He is also a committee member of the Melbourne University Liberal Club. James has been a guest
speaker at the Liberal Speakers group, secondary schools and the National Young Writers Festival.
James graduated from McKinnon Secondary College in 2005 and is now studying an arts–commerce degree at the
University of Melbourne, majoring in political science and economics. He is the author of a political web blog,
Neo-Con.
Mr PATERSON — I thank the chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My task here today is to
assist in persuading you to vote against the motion that the Australian government’s antiterrorism legislation is
undemocratic and should be repealed. Instead of spending the next 6½ minutes explaining how important this
legislation is and how necessary it is in our fight against antiterrorism, I am going to focus on the other half of this
debate.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
8
The antiterrorism legislation passed by our federal Parliament late last year is among the most democratic pieces of
legislation ever in existence in Australian history. I will give you a moment to digest that statement, and I will take
the opportunity to address some of the comments made by Mr Taft, the previous speaker.
Clearly Mr Taft has significant moral and legal problems with this legislation. He cites the control orders and of
course the controversial sedition provisions in the legislation as areas of concern. Mr Taft and I clearly disagree on
the best balance between, on the one hand, protecting individual liberty and, on the other, upholding the safety of
the community. In this debate, as in all debates about our policy responses to terrorism, there is a fundamental
trade-off between the two. It is inevitable that you have to pick a point between one or the other, and the further you
move to one side, in many cases, the more you will be sacrificing the other.
A good example of this is control orders. Whilst unquestionably the individual rights of people such as Mr Thomas
are impacted by the application of a control order, at the same time potentially the community has increased safety
as a result.
In this debate you may disagree with me, and you may believe that this antiterrorism legislation is unnecessary and
that it is unjustified; you may agree with Mr Taft; and of course you may agree with Mr Barker that this legislation
is unnecessary and should not exist. But that does not mean you should support the motion we are asked to consider
today, because in order for you to do that, you also have to agree that this legislation is somehow undemocratic and,
as I will establish over the next few minutes, that is clearly not the case.
Unlike most legislation which merely passes through our federal and state houses of Parliament, this legislation is
subject to a raft of democratic checks and balances that do not exist with any other legislation. It began by being
passed by our federal Parliament, where our elected representatives, with whom we have trusted our votes to
represent our interests in Canberra, debated and discussed this legislation.
They overwhelmingly supported the legislation through both houses of Parliament with the Labor, Liberal and
National parties all voting in favour and only the Greens and the Democrats registering votes against the legislation.
But in fact the process actually began earlier than that at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), where
our elected representatives from a state level — the premiers and chief ministers — had an opportunity to discuss
with the Prime Minister and his representatives the necessity of the proposed law and to debate it. In fact at this
meeting there was significant dispute about the legislation, and several changes occurred as a result.
Even more importantly, our elected representatives had another opportunity to debate and discuss this legislation,
because every state and territory Parliament in this country passed legislation which effectively brought the
legislation into effect in our states and territories. Here, our elected representatives at a state level had an
opportunity to discuss, to debate and ultimately to express support for this legislation.
But again, the process does not stop there. This feels like one of those daytime shows where I keep saying, ‘But
wait, there’s more’ — and, no, there are no steak knives coming next! Implicit within this legislation is a
requirement that it be reviewed by COAG in five years time. In 2010 our premiers, chief ministers and perhaps
even a new prime minister will meet and discuss this legislation. If they conclude that it should be repealed, if they
conclude it should be reformed and if they conclude it should be retained in full, then it will be. But there is another
clause in this legislation, which is known as a sunset clause, which is even more important.
This is a clause which effectively means that in 10 years time — in 2015 — the legislation will become invalid
across Australia. The reason that was done was to ensure that this legislation does not merely become part of the
furniture and does not remain in our statute forever. If our state, territory and federal leaders believe in 10 years
time this legislation is still necessary, then they will again have to prove to the Australian community that it is and
they will again have to pass it through our houses of Parliament.
Even more importantly, the Australian Law Reform Commission is currently conducting a review into the
controversial sedition provisions which Mr Taft mentioned, to ensure they have a minimal impact on our freedom
of speech. But at the end of the day in this debate, in which we are debating the democratic nature of this
legislation, we must remember the one most important feature of this legislation — that is, where the Australian
community stands on this issue.
Unquestionably the Australian community supports this legislation. In a poll conducted for the Sydney Morning
Herald in October 2005, 74 per cent of respondents indicated that they supported restrictions on the rights of
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
9
terrorist suspects. Unquestionably with our state and federal parliamentarians voting on this legislation, they have
again indicated their support. To suggest therefore that this legislation is somehow undemocratic is clearly absurd.
Whilst you may come to the same conclusion as Mr Taft and Mr Barker that this legislation goes too far and
infringes too much on the rights of suspected terrorists, this does not mean you must support the motion before us
today. You may be ambivalent about the detail of this legislation, but you surely should be able to recognise that it
is democratic. Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to vote against this motion and to retain our democratic
antiterrorism laws.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much, James. It is now my pleasure to invite Mr Phillip Barker to
conclude for those who are for the motion. Can I just say at the outset how grateful we are to Phillip for making his
time available to us at such terribly short notice.
I have a little bit of detail about Phillip. He has been very humble in his notes. Phillip is a member of the Melbourne
University Debating Society. He volunteers for the Oaktree Foundation and Free Debate. Phillip won best speaker
and was the winner of the Melbourne University debating competition prize.
Mr BARKER — Ladies and gentlemen, our side of the house is going to show you why these laws are
undemocratic and we are going to tell you that it is not enough that people in the houses of Parliament have voted
for them. What we heard from those who are against this motion is that because the politicians have voted for this
legislation and because one poll indicated that Australians support this legislation, that therefore that is sufficient.
We are going to show you that, firstly, this legislation is in direct contradiction to the rule of law, which is a basis
upon which we hang our laws in this country; secondly, it is in contradiction of our international obligations; and
finally, it is an incredible infringement upon our freedoms. Our opposition told us that because Australians have
been scared, very legitimately, by the terrorist attacks, it is sufficient that we respond harshly.
What we would say to that is that at times when the public is scared, and at times when society is scared of attack,
leadership is required from politicians, and that is not what we have seen. Leadership is what it takes to defend the
values that Australian society is based on. Leadership is what is required to defend the liberties that we have spent
hundreds of years trying to establish. Leadership is not following the flock when it is scared, and it is sad to see that
that is the state which the vast majority of politicians in Australia have got to.
I want to investigate the idea we have heard from the opposition that it is a balance between liberty and security. It
has told us that you have to sacrifice one in order to have the other, and we just do not agree. What we would say is
that there is no problem with the criminal law; it is sufficient. These extra measures are completely unnecessary and
we have heard nothing on that front. We have said there is no reason to think this legislation would do anything
about any of the terrorist acts that we have seen so far. We have no reason to think it would have any deterrent
effect, and the opposition failed to show that it would. What we can show are its harms, and that is what I am going
to show now, firstly, in terms of the rule of law.
The rule of law prohibits arbitrary power being held by one person and being unchecked — with no accountability.
It has things such as the judiciary which regulates to whom people need to be accountable. It has Parliament and it
has the separation of powers which means that no one person holds all the power. The proposed law allows for the
minister, who is the Attorney-General, to define who is in a terrorist group. He gets to pick who is on that list. If
somebody is in a certain group and that group is then nominated as a terrorist group, by virtue of being a member of
that group they can be jailed for 20 years. That is arbitrary power; there is no accountability there. There are no
measures.
Also, the minister can authorise warrants and people can be held under them for up to one week. Again, there is no
check or balance on those warrants. The problem is that after one week the minister can then issue another warrant,
and then another. The reality is that there is no check on the way this power can be executed. Finally, in terms of
the rule of law, when an individual is interrogated they have no right to a lawyer, or to somebody who can explain
the process to them. As previously highlighted, they have no right to know what they are charged with.
These are completely unnecessary and unfair provisions that we have not needed in the past in our fight against
crime, and by goodness we certainly do not need them now in our so-called war against terrorism. What we heard
from Malcolm Fraser, a past Prime Minister of this country, was that the ASIO legislation of 2005 underlines
Australia’s official indifference to due process and to what until recently would have been regarded as the
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
10
universally accepted rule of law. It is being denounced by those who have studied in these areas as unnecessary and
particularly problematic in terms of power.
Secondly, in terms of our international obligations, Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights which says things like we will not arbitrarily arrest people. Yet this legislation allows us to
keep people in detention when we have no evidence to suggest that they should be there. We can keep people under
a control order when they have been found to be innocent. We can bring people in for questioning, and we can
charge people if we think they might have information about something which might be a terrorist act. There is no
control over these powers, and it is blatantly arbitrary arrest which is in direct contradiction of our obligations under
the ICCPR.
My last two points relate to the right to silence, so that if you do not want to talk, you should have the right not to,
and anywhere else in the criminal law in this country and in large parts of the developed world you have that right.
But you do not have that right under this legislation, and in fact it is a crime to try to remain silent. Also there is the
freedom from self-incrimination. Under any other part of Australian law, including the criminal law, you are free
from saying, ‘I did it’. You are free from saying, ‘I killed the person’. You are free from saying, ‘I stole it’.
Somebody has to prove it. The onus is on the authorities, and that is because we defend the liberty of the individual
and we presume they are innocent. That is not what this legislation does. This legislation says, ‘Prove you have
nothing to tell us; prove you have no documents to give us’. Otherwise a person must stay in detention. That is the
very nature of this bill and let us make no mistake on that front.
My final point is about the idea of freedom, because what we have heard from the opposition is that it is necessary
to defend our freedom and to prevent terrorist attacks. But ladies and gentlemen, let us look at the freedoms we
usually enjoy — like freedom from self-incrimination and the right to silence, and if you are brought into detention
the right to tell someone in your life that that is where you are, which is a right you do not have under this
legislation. For example, under any other criminal law the authorities will tell your next of kin, but under this
legislation if you are taken into detention the authorities will not inform your next of kin. That is an inhuman part of
this legislation and it is completely necessary. Under the criminal law if you are brought into detention you have the
right to have access to a doctor and a lawyer and to your next of kin, but apparently people who are brought in
under this antiterrorism legislation will not have that right.
We are proud to say this is destroying the rule of law; it is against our international obligations and it unreasonably
impinges on our freedoms in a way which is completely and categorically unnecessary.
The CHAIR — Thank you. Delegates, I hope you enjoyed that debate as much as I did. It is now your
opportunity to ask questions to clarify or challenge what you have heard any of the speakers say. In order to get
some sort of organisation around what will ultimately end up being anarchy, I ask two things of you. Firstly, all the
microphones are off except for the ones at the front, so I ask you to come and ask your questions at either of the
microphones in the front. If somebody is asking a question and you think, ‘I have one too’, then by all means stand
near the end of the table so we can form a queue which will make things a bit quicker as well. Secondly, Hansard
reporters are exceptional and extraordinary but they cannot read minds, so when you ask your question you need to
give your name and the school you come from.
Miss SPROULE — My question is to Mr Moore. Would you clarify the statement about there being
100 000 supporters of terrorist groups living in Australia? Are you including sympathisers or people who can
understand the idea of why these people might be doing this, and do you not think it has really scary parallels to
what happened under the Soviet regime?
Mr MOORE — Thank you for the question. The parallel I drew was with the poll taken in the United
Kingdom showing that one-quarter of the Muslim community in the UK supported the suicide bomb attacks in
London. There are about 400 000 Muslims in Australia, and one-quarter of that is 100 000. Of course, not all those
100 000 are active terrorists or anything like it, but what I am talking about is not simply people who are prepared
to be terrorists or suicide bombers; I am talking about people who would support that through organisations, and
people who would support it silently for that matter.
Ms SATARI — My question is to the first speaker of the against team, Mr Moore. You say this is not
targeting Muslims. Then why do you define Islam? Also, if I were to walk down the street going on about how I
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
11
want to kill John Howard, would you arrest me, as opposed to some Anglo person walking down the street doing
the same thing?
Mr MOORE — I am sorry, you will have to repeat your question, I did not quite understand.
Ms SATARI — The first part is: if you are not targeting Muslims in this legislation, then why do you
specifically define Islamic terrorism, when there is so much terrorism going on in the world? The second part is: if I
were to walk down the street saying something like, ‘I want to kill John Howard’, or anyone, as a Muslim — you
can tell I am a Muslim — would you arrest me, or treat me the same way you would as you would an Anglo person
who was walking down the street saying exactly the same thing?
Mr MOORE — Certainly so far as I am concerned, you would be treated exactly the same way. If you
said you were going to kill John Howard and you looked as though you were doing it seriously, I would not care
whether you were a Muslim or what you were, you would be subject to whatever penalty may apply. The first part
of the question, as I understood it, said there are other terrorists in the world. Yes, that is true, although the IRA
seems to have given up the ghost. In reality now there are very few other terrorist groups in the world apart from
terrorists associated with Islamic ideology.
Mr BLAKE — I am against it all. I have a question for Mr Barker. Have you ever thought about what
Australia would be like without these laws? For example, do you reckon the Sydney Opera House would still be
there, and things like that? If you do not think the law should be there, what do you think we should do?
Mr BARKER — In regard to the first part of the question, I think we would look pretty similar to what
we do now, or what we did in July last year before the bill was enacted. But what I suggest we should do in terms
of confronting terrorism is what we should do in terms of confronting crime on any front — that is, give civil
liberties the weight they deserve. We think when you look at things like the September 11 attacks, they are not
things that could have been prevented by having greater police powers; they could not have been prevented by
having control orders. In those circumstances greater intelligence would have worked. So in terms of proposals,
things like a greater intelligence community and greater links between international intelligence organisations are
certainly a start. But we think, when you look at the nature of these acts, there is just no link between why they are
carried out and how they are carried and the powers that people are equipped with under the ASIO bill. Because
there is no link there is no reason to think we will have any degree of prevention under this legislation, or that the
opera house is still standing because of it.
Mr ASSAAD — My question is to Mr Moore. We always need to look at laws, especially these ones
because they are dealing with terrorists such and such, but not at the expense of the civil liberties of Australians in
this democratic country. Let me rephrase something in regard to what Mr Moore said before. We as Muslims do
not believe in these suicide attacks or these terrorist activities. We do not support it in a way, but the fact that there
are minor groups taking advantage and interpreting their religion in their own way is what leads the name of our
religion into disrepute. I will quote from our holy book. It clearly says: if you kill one innocent person it is like
killing all of mankind, and if you save one person it is as if you have saved all of humanity. The question to
Mr Moore is: do you think these laws would have stopped the Bali bombs at all?
Mr MOORE — I do not know why I am getting all the questions! Of course not all Muslims are in favour
of terrorism or associated activity. The point is that there is a significant minority of Muslims that are, and the
danger particularly in the modern circumstances and modern warfare is extreme, because an enormous amount of
damage can be done by very few people. The Muslim leaders in Australia and around the world are backward in
my view in not coming out and condemning their own extremists. We have a case where Sheik Taj El-Din
Al-Hilaly in Sydney has called for the ostracism of a fellow Muslim who criticised Mohammed.
Mr RAHIMOVSKI — My question is to Mr Taft. If Australia did not join the coalition of the willing, do
you think terrorists and terrorism would threaten our national security today?
Mr TAFT — Can I answer it a little indirectly? Has joining the coalition of the willing reduced or
increased the risk of terrorism in Australia? That is the question that you need to ask. I spoke earlier about
demonising groupings and creating a climate of fear. I recall getting in a lift with Jack Thomas in the city. As
people piled into the lift they recognised who Jack was. These were sleek-suited men in the lift. There was an
audible exhalation of breath as people started to worry about who was in the lift. When Jack produced a mobile
phone there were people in that lift who were in a state of panic, and people looked at the alarm button and piled
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
12
out at the first floor. That says something about the climate of fear that we now have in our community. That is not
something which will reduce the prospect of terrorism in any way.
Mr BALLARD — My question is for Mr Paterson. First of all I would like to thank you very much for
coming along and speaking today. You argue that the legislation is democratic, in that it has successfully gone
through the democratic process. But surely you would agree that the very nature of the legislation is undemocratic,
in that our democracy is based on the principle that the public has a right to know the facts about the issue being
debated. Do you not agree that the outlined sedition offences in the legislation and the fearmongering and fear
campaign by the Howard government that has surrounded this legislation has affected the democratic process
negatively?
Mr PATERSON — Thanks for the question. It is actually a very good question. One parallel that I draw
with this legislation, particularly the sedition provisions, is the anti-religious vilification legislation passed by the
Victorian Parliament. I would argue that has a far bigger impact on our freedom of speech than the sedition
provisions contained in the federal legislation. In the federal legislation the only thing the sedition provisions limit
are people who call for violence against the Australian government or against communities in Australia, whereas
the Victorian legislation referring to religious and racial vilification is far broader and just refers to vilification in
general, and has a lot more potential to be interpreted in a wider scope. So I think if you are really concerned about
freedom of speech and democracy from that perspective, then you would have to be equally concerned with the
anti-vilification legislation that we currently have in Victoria.
Mr DALY — My question is to Mr Paterson. Do you really think there was sufficient time to review the
bill? In just 25 days it was reviewed. It is something which is so vital to our rights but it was given such little time.
Do you really think that was done properly and in the right way? It is something that is a perversion of justice. As
Mr Taft said, people can be taken to jail by control orders for up to a year or any amount of time without cause or
reason. Do you think there was sufficient time to review a bill of such great importance to our society?
Mr PATERSON — Another very good question. In fact it was not 25 days. The legislation began to be
reviewed in September, when it was discussed at the Coalition of Australian Governments. It was subsequently
discussed in Parliament over October and November and was not passed until December. Throughout that time
there was significant discussion in the media. If you turned on the television at news time or bought a newspaper in
the last three or four months of last year, you would have been confronted with discussion and debate about the
legislation. One quick correction — a control order does not actually put someone in jail; it just limits their rights
and freedoms. It says that they cannot go to certain locations and they cannot contact certain people.
Miss GALEA — I have a question for Mr Paterson. Do you think this legislation may in fact work
adversely and increase the risk to Australians?
Mr PATERSON — I think the point that you are getting at there is that the legislation has the potential to
disfranchise some people in the community and potentially increase tension between groups in the community. I
accept that as a point. I think that is a relevant consideration. At the end of the day, though, I think it is more
important for us to have provisions which allow us to prevent terrorism when we receive the intelligence that it is
going to occur than it is to preserve community harmony. I am very strong in the belief that this legislation does not
and should not concentrate on any specific community, because if we do that, not only would that be unfair, it
would also be ineffective. The only source of terrorism is not just Muslims; there are other people in the
community who are a threat to the community. I do not think it should focus on one community, and I do not think
that we should not have legislation because we are worried that some people might be offended or feel ostracised.
Miss WARD — I have a question for Mr Taft. If you took these laws away, what laws would be there to
punish people who did these terrorist acts? And what do you suggest should be done to deter people from these
attacks and criminal things?
Mr TAFT — I said that people who plan or commit terrorist acts should be vigorously prosecuted. In
Western Australia Jack Roche, who had trained with JI, was convicted of conspiracy to bomb the Israeli embassy
and the Israeli consulate. He was not convicted under terrorist legislation, he was convicted under existing laws. If
you plan to attack a building or to harm someone, then there are any number of laws with which you can be
charged and under which you can be prosecuted. Those laws have been in existence for a long time. It did not
require terrorist legislation for Jack Roche to be charged and convicted.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
13
Miss TABAK — My question is to the second speaker on the negative side. You spoke about the process
that this legislation has at the state level and what-not. Do you agree that Australians should and would support the
decision of the government to follow George Bush into invading Iraq without any evident reason?
The CHAIR — Good question.
Mr PATERSON — Just to answer that very quickly, 74 per cent of the Australian community supported
it. I do not think it is really relevant whether they disagree with the decision to invade Iraq or not; that is a separate
issue. Seventy-four per cent of the Australian community support the antiterrorism terrorism.
The CHAIR — Possibly because of a whole lot of reasons.
Mr HEATH — My question is directed to Mr Moore. Do you really believe you can come to the
conclusion that because a quarter of English Muslims supported the London bombings that a similar percentage is
present in Australia? Have you considered that social, cultural and historical differences between Australia and
England could affect this number, meaning that this number of 100 000 that you estimated could be far less?
Mr MOORE — Obviously any attempt to compare Britain and Australia’s Muslim community is going
to be a very rough comparison. I was using that figure simply to illustrate that there is likely to be within the
Australian Muslim community a significant number who support the terrorist activities or the terrorist ideology, if
you like. It is nothing more than that. If you have a minority in present circumstances, as I have said, they can cause
an enormous amount of damage.
Miss BUSH — Mr Paterson, I was just wondering whether in your opinion it is possible for a similar
circumstance as happened in America with David Hicks to happen in Australia with the new laws?
The CHAIR — That is about the best one so far.
Mr PATERSON — It is a very good one. No, I do not think that is possible at all. The preventive
detention provisions in the legislation only go up to 48 hours. David Hicks has been held for a couple of years
without charge. In Australia you cannot hold anyone over 48 hours without a charge.
Mr FRENKEN — I direct my question to Mr Taft. I refer to your defence of Jihad Jack, or Mr Thomas.
In your speech you declared that there was no technicality as the basis of his acquittal. I refer you to the
supplementary notes and the article ‘Fury after Jihad Jack walks free’ where it comments on the basis of his
confession coming only after a string of torturous events and heavy interrogation where at one point under the AFP
a US agent threatened to rape his mother and put his genitals in a vice. I suggest to you that this is not the
Australian way of obtaining a confession. This is not how we as Australians should or do conduct ourselves — this
being the reason why it was declared inadmissible. Do you think Australia has insufficient international policing
agencies, thus affecting your level of support for the antiterrorism legislation?
Mr TAFT — The exclusion of the record of interview of Jack Thomas came about because he had been
interrogated by Americans, Pakistanis and Australians in very harsh circumstances. He had effectively been told
that if he did not cooperate, he was likely to go to Guantanamo Bay. He was threatened, and he was shackled
against the wall of a cell for an extended period. In Australia the rule of law dictates that in order for a confession to
be admitted into evidence the person who makes that confession, the confessionalist, must have the opportunity to
speak freely. In Jack Thomas’s case the Court of Appeal held — in my view quite correctly — that his confession
was not the product of a choice to speak freely; it was a confession forced from him. That is the cornerstone of our
law, not a technicality.
Mr HOLMES — This question is in general to the affirmative team — either of you can answer, if you
wish. I would just like to ask: do you really think that this act is detrimental to the Australian public, if people have
nothing to hide?
Mr TAFT — I get very concerned when I hear that significant numbers of Muslims believe that
September 11 was not a product of an Arab attack. I get very concerned when I hear a minority of Muslims in the
West support the London bombing. It is my view that the terrorist legislation strengthens rather than weakens
extremists within the Islamic community. If you attack people and attack a community, if you put them under a
state of siege, if they feal beleaguered, if they feel they are harassed, if they feel they are going to be forced to talk,
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
14
then it is the extremists in their ranks who will be strengthened. The antiterrorist legislation will strengthen
extremism, not reduce it. It is intelligence and good, accurate, quality intelligence that prevents terrorist acts, not
this sort of legislation.
Mr JOVANOSKI — I want to direct my question to Mr Paterson. I was just wondering how you justify
an undemocratic law which says the authorities have the right to shoot to kill potential suspects in a supposed time
of crisis.
Mr PATERSON — The shoot-to-kill provisions in the legislation were removed after they were
disagreed to by the premiers at the Council of Australian Governments meeting. In order to bring that shoot-to-kill
provision into effect it would need to have been passed through state parliaments, because states have a
constitutional responsibility for law and order. In order for that to come into effect they would have to pass that
legislation, but they did not agree to that. A significant proportion of the Australian community also did not agree.
Those laws were not passed and are not in effect.
Mr MBALA — My question is addressed to Mr James Paterson. Do you honestly believe that all of the
74 per cent of the Australian community which agreed with these laws consider that these laws might apply to their
children and themselves, that they could be kept in a cell for a year or so or whatever amount of time without being
able to talk to their families? Do you believe they considered that? If they had, do you believe they would have
agreed with them?
The CHAIR — Are you clear on the question?
Mr PATERSON — Yes. Thanks for the question. First of all, I think it is not relevant what people think
when they vote. We cannot sit back and criticise democratic decisions and say the decision they have arrived at is
not valid because of this, this and this. It is democracy. You might not like the reasons people make that decision
but ultimately the way they vote is the way they vote. You cannot say their decision is invalid or it is undemocratic
simply because of the reasons they gave for supporting it.
Secondly, I think they probably did not think it would be in effect on them or their children, and they have very
good reason not to. How many people have been charged under this legislation? Only a handful. We have
20 million people in Australia and the vast majority will not ever be charged under this legislation.
Mr BLAKE — I have another question for Philip. Mr Taft said this law is a wartime law. Because it is so
harsh I think it is just there to scare people off and stop the terror from coming here. Do you think it will go further
than just the war?
Mr BARKER — I think you touched on two things: one was the issue of deterrence and the other was the
issue of fear. Firstly, in terms of deterrence, it has been alleged that these types of laws are going to deter people
from committing terrorist acts and there is just no reason to believe that. If you look at the type of people who are
committing terrorist acts around the world, they are the type of people who are not deterred by the fact that there
are laws against it. Nor are they deterred that it is illegal to be killing other individuals. They do it for reasons that
run far deeper and for reasons that are far more fundamental to their being. We just do not accept that these laws
are in any way a deterrent just because it is alleged as such.
However, in terms of whether I think people will be scared, I absolutely think people will be scared. I think people
will begin to understand, especially within the segments of the community that are going to be targeted, that they
can be arbitrarily detained and when they are arbitrarily detained, their next of kin will not know about it, they will
not have access to a lawyer and they will not have access to a doctor. There is a whole raft of provisions in this that
are completely contrary to the nature of the criminal law that everybody in society has come to understand. Do I
think people in society will be scared? I think there are those who will be, and very justifiably so.
Miss SATARI — My question is to Mr Paterson. You just said that you cannot question the reason
someone chooses to vote in a way. So how can you support a bill that would potentially arrest someone who
chooses to support a certain organisation or ideology?
Mr PATERSON — I should clarify my previous response. You are quite entitled to question and disagree
with it, but just as I might disagree with the decision of the Victorian electorate in 2002 when it elected the Bracks
government, that does not mean it is undemocratic.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
15
As to your second point, with the prescription of terrorist organisations I believe it is justifiable to detain people
who are members of an organisation which is supportive of terrorism but only if it is on the basis that that
individual is potentially involved in terrorism. If that individual is someone who is just a name on a list of members
of an organisation which is vaguely supportive or once said that maybe terrorism is not so bad, I do not think there
is any reason to detain them.
However, if they are a member of that organisation and they themselves have made personal statements in support
of terrorism or there is any evidence to suggest that they would be involved in terrorism in the future, then I think
there is potential for them to be charged and potential for them to be tried in a court.
Miss SPROULE — I have another question for Mr Moore. Do you believe that isolating and maliciously
targeting the largely peaceful Australian Muslim community will not only strengthen the will of the extremists who
may but probably do not live in the Australian community but will also fester displeasure and unhappiness towards
the West?
Mr MOORE — This question as to whether the legislation increases terrorism or not is a difficult one to
deal with. You have to remember that there is a long history of terrorist encouragement from al-Qaeda and other
similar groups. It is not simply something which has emerged in the last couple of years, but it has increased in the
last couple of years.
I am on the council of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra so I have a lot of contact with
intelligence agencies. I am glad Mark referred to intelligence in the answer to one of his questions because I did not
think he was taking that into account when he made his main address. It is possible to say that there may be an
increase in terrorism following significant antiterrorism legislation, but to my mind there would still have been a
very high level of potential terrorist activity. I am concerned about the absolute level rather than whether it is an
increase or a decrease.
Miss D’AGOSTINO — My question is for Mr Paterson. What is your opinion of the Democrats’ decision
not to support the legislation? Does this mean that the piece of legislation is not democratic?
Mr PATERSON — Do not let the Democrats mislead you. They are not the only bastion of democracy in
our federal Parliament. Purely from a political perspective, the reason that the Democrats opposed the legislation is
because they are a party on the way out. They are being out-muscled by the Greens on the left. The protest vote
which used to go to the Democrats away from the major parties is now going to the Greens. They need to appear to
address these kinds of issues that are concerns for a certain group of voters, and in order to retain those votes they
needed to vote against that legislation. I think it is purely political.
Miss MECHALAANI — My question is for Mr Paterson. Sorry to bring you up again! You say that the
antiterrorist laws are here to protect the Australian people, but do you not think that we are giving into fear? Are we
not supporting terror by forming these antiterrorist laws? The war on terror is an ideological war. By creating these
laws, are we not giving the terrorists exactly what they want? We are taking away our civil liberties.
Mr PATERSON — A common misconception brought up in a lot of these debates is that the terrorists
secret aim is that we pass antiterrorism laws. I suspect the terrorists do not care whether we have antiterrorism laws
and in fact that they would prefer we did not have them, because they make it more difficult for them to operate.
What the terrorists really want is to establish a fundamentalist state and to impose their views on the rest of the
community. I do not think that they are terribly concerned about whether or not we have particular legislation
which has preventative detention or control orders or requires lawyers to seek permission to hear sensitive material
in court. I do not think that is something that is no. 1 on their list of concerns.
Miss SAOUD — My question is again to Mr Paterson. The antiterrorism laws are there to prevent
terrorism, but should we not all be looking at why these terrorist attacks occur in the first place? Secondly, coming
from an Arabic background, I hear my father say all the time, ‘The terrorists are defending themselves against the
West the only way they know how’. I believe Australians put this danger upon themselves in getting involved in
the pointless and terrifying war against Iraq and by following the lead of George Bush. What do you say to that?
The CHAIR — Indeed!
Mr PATERSON — I think the Chair is voting a particular way on this motion.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
16
The CHAIR — The Chair is impartial.
Mr PATERSON — In response to your question, you said Australia is following the lead of George Bush
and that the Iraq war has potentially increased the threat of terrorism to Australia. I think the Bali bombings are a
perfect example. These occurred before the Iraq war. Admittedly we were identified with being supportive of the
Americans in Afghanistan. There is a direct quote from Osama Bin Laden and from someone in Jemaah Islamiah
that their dislike for Australia is more about East Timor. In 1999 Australians helped liberate East Timor from
Indonesia, which made a lot of fundamentalists very angry because they felt that East Timor should be part of
Indonesia because Indonesia is a majority Muslim state. I do not think the only reason we have been targeted by
terrorists is because we have associated ourselves with George Bush. Obviously it is part of it, but even without that
I think we still would have been a threat.
Miss BEALE — My question is to Mr Paterson. Under this legislation, do you think any parallels could
possibly occur with the innocent man who was fatally shot after the London Underground bombings because he
would not stop running from the scene? My second question is: do you think that the laws that allowed this in the
United Kingdom are really democratic, regardless of the process involved in passing them?
Mr PATERSON — A very good question. You are referring to the shooting of Charles De Menezes, who
was shot while fleeing from police. He was not a terrorist or a terrorist suspect, but at the time police were under
the impression that he was somehow involved in the London bombings. The process which allowed for that man to
be shot dead on that day as a terrorist was related to the shoot-to-kill provisions, which we were discussing earlier.
The British police who shot him said in their testimony that they believed he was a terrorist, and they were
scared — because he was running towards the train system — that he potentially had bombs on his body, and they
shot him. In Australian law it is not legal to shoot to kill. Those provisions were not included in the antiterrorism
legislation.
I think the British laws are democratic. Tony Blair and the Labour Party in Britain passed these laws through their
Parliament. The laws are supported by a significant majority in that Parliament, and that is the way that we make
laws in democratic countries. We elect our representatives who then have votes in Parliament and make our laws.
Individually we may disagree with certain laws and may have criticisms of them, but that does not necessarily
mean they are undemocratic.
The CHAIR — Thanks, James. The last three delegates will be our last three questions, and then I would
like to offer the opportunity to the lead speakers both for and against to sum up their cases.
Mr MBALA — Referring to my previous question, you said that you believed the majority of people
voted for the law. Are you ready to accept the fact that if for some reason your son, if you have one, became a
terrorist suspect that he can be kept in a prison cell for a long period of time without any physical contact with you?
Do you think that is fair?
The CHAIR — James, I think the question is: would you be prepared to see any of your children treated
like that?
Mr PATERSON — Thank you for reframing that question. I accept your point, but I think a misnomer
that often occurs in this debate is that people do refer to things like David Hicks and other cases where people are
detained for a long period of time without charge. Under the antiterrorism legislation the maximum time that you
can hold someone without charge is 48 hours, then you must charge them or release them. It is possible to issue a
control order on them after that, but they will not be actually detained for that period. They are allowed to live in
their own homes with some restrictions.
I think the idea that someone is going to be locked away in some wasteland for years and never have the chance to
hear their charge and never have a chance to speak to their lawyer or next of kin is false. The case of Jack Thomas,
to which Mr Taft referred, was after Mr Thomas had been charged. It was not as though he had been detained and
was not aware of the charges against him, that he did not have a lawyer to represent him and that he was not able to
contact his family. His contact with his family was limited, much like it is for other people who are suspected of
crimes. In this case it is more serious because it is terrorism which potentially is much more dangerous than other
forms of crime.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
17
Mr FRENKEN — James, I address this to you in response to your response to the other question. You
said in relation to the London bombings that you cannot lawfully shoot to kill. However — and I may sound a little
pretentious in saying this — is it not true in Australian law that if authorities cannot lawfully detain or arrest
someone they can lawfully kill that person? Due to this Australian law do you think we may see an incident like
that of the London bombings if a terrorist attack were ever to occur in Australia — that is, that an innocent man
running from a scene could be killed by Australian authorities?
Mr PATERSON — As I understand it, under Australian law police are only allowed to fire on someone if
they believe that doing so will limit harm to innocent bystanders and themselves — for example, if someone wields
a knife and comes toward a police officer, police are entitled to open fire on that person. As I understand it, under
Australian law, if under the circumstances police decide they cannot capture a person or arrest them, that does not
mean that they can just shoot them. They do not do that when there is a car chase. I do not think they would do that
in other circumstances. The only circumstances in which they are allowed to do it is if they assess at the time that
there is a significant risk of innocent people being harmed as a result of them not doing anything.
Miss WALDEN — Mr Moore, do you think that the government is abusing its power by passing this law
to gain more power by using fear? Is that in itself democratic?
Mr MOORE — The short answer is that I do not think they are trying to gain more power. I have a lot of
contact with very serious people in Canberra on both sides of the political fence, and both sides of the political
fence recognise there is a serious problem, and that is why both sides of the house — both main sides of the
house — have agreed to pass the legislation.
The CHAIR — Thank you very much, delegates, for some excellent questions, and I thank our speakers
for some very fine responses. Although it is not in the program, prior to going to morning tea I thought that, given
such vigorous debate, both sides might like the opportunity to sum up for 3 minutes. I will leave it to either side to
work out who they will have as their last speaker.
Mr TAFT — I seek to make two points. The overwhelming majority of Muslims living in Australia do
not support terrorism. However, the legislation that has been introduced has caused many mainstream Muslims to
feel that they live in a state of siege. There is suspicion when they go on public transport, walk the streets, look
different. Somehow as a community we need to make mainstream Muslims capable of speaking out against
extremist and foolish persons.
The laws that we have introduced have increased the number of disaffected, alienated, angry young men who are
attracted to simple solutions. These are mostly young men in Australia who are not very well educated, who are not
coming to events such as this, who feel that life’s opportunities are not being provided, and who feel isolated. That
is in part because many Muslims feel they are in a state of siege, they feel beleaguered. The legislation that we have
introduced has not in that sense reduced the prospect of the fostering of terrorism or sympathy for terrorism. It has
had the opposite effect. It has increased the number of people who believe that extremist theories and extremist
practice is a good thing.
We need, as a community, to have an inclusive and open approach, and we must find the means of creating a
dialogue with the Muslim community. I agree with Des on one point: it is very disturbing if the majority of
Muslims in the west do not believe that Arabs are responsible for 9/11. That does not mean that people who have
such foolish views are terrorists. If you stigmatise those people who have such foolish views as terrorists, you
create terrorism.
The legislation that we have introduced will not, for the most part, lessen the prospect of terrorism. It will have the
opposite effect, and drive people towards simple, foolish and naive answers. That is why that legislation is not
needed and is not a good thing. Thank you.
Mr MOORE — I notice there are a number of Muslim children here. They do not seem to be isolated; on
the contrary, they are speaking out. I notice also that there are some leaders of the Islamic community in Australia
who also speak out in favour of terrorism, unfortunately, and they do not, unfortunately, get condemned by other
Muslim leaders who are prepared to live in a civilised community.
In my view there is a real threat, a serious threat, to ordinary citizens. What this legislation is about is protecting
ordinary citizens. Contrary to what Mark said, the existing legislation would not have been sufficient to deal with
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
18
terrorist activity. In fact, he has admitted that it is only for the most part that ordinary legislation could have dealt
with it. Although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that quite a considerable area of terrorist activity would
not have been dealt with by the existing criminal legislation — for example, being a member of a terrorist
organisation.
I notice that the other side has not addressed the democracy issue at all — or hardly at all. Quite clearly, from what
we have said, this is a democratic piece of legislation.
Finally, Mark mentioned that it was absurd to describe the evidence in the case that he has been advising on and the
fact that this evidence was technically inadmissible. He challenged the use of the word ‘technical’. Without going
into the detail of the case — of course I would be at a disadvantage if I tried to challenge Mark on that — the fact is
that the court itself said there was no question about the statements made by the accused, about the reliability. I do
not have the exact words, but they were similar to that. The accused himself, after the conviction was overturned,
went out and had a TV interview and admitted he was guilty.
The CHAIR — Delegates, I hope you have enjoyed that session as much as I did. I remind you that in a
moment we will go to morning tea in Queen’s Hall. After morning tea you will go into your discussion groups. A
list of the groups and where each group will meet is provided in your folder. Make sure you check that. Some of
you will be identified as a group leader and others as a recorder. The group leader’s role is to help you to reach
decisions about each question for discussion and to make sure everyone who wants to speak has a chance to have a
say, so that somebody does not take over and do all the talking. The recorder will write down the group’s agreed
position about each question. In some cases this might be an all-agreed or all-disagreed decision; in other cases it
might be a split decision. You should also list the reasons why you agreed or disagreed on the question. The
recorder will report back to the full group before lunch. The recorder must make sure that he or she gives the
group’s response sheet to a committee member after its presentation during the feedback session this afternoon so
that the group’s ideas can be included in the final communiqué.
I encourage our guest speakers to join us for morning tea. Delegates, if you did not get a chance to ask a question,
please have them there and ready for discussion over a cup of tea or coffee. Well done, delegates, and thank you
again to our guest speakers. It was fascinating.
PART B: EXPLORING THE ISSUE
Feedback session
The CHAIR — Delegates, I hope you all had a wonderful time in your discussions. We all now look
forward to hearing a 2-minute report back by the group leaders. I need to be reasonably strict on the 2-minute time
limit.
Group 1
Mr DALY — Good afternoon, speakers and students. My name is Matthew Daly, and I am from
Mazenod College. Today in group 1 we discussed whether the antiterrorism laws were undemocratic. I may say
that the group had a rather biased view that they were undemocratic and that they should be repealed. Towards the
end of the discussion, the vote was unanimous that the laws were undemocratic and should be repealed.
For the first session we discussed the definition of democracy and whether these laws were really constitutional.
We then voted that they were not constitutional as their very framework went against the constitution and in their
very nature they went against civil rights that have been longstanding in our courts and within our society as a
whole. These civil rights give purpose and meaning to each one of our lives, and the act of stripping these rights for
the very sake of what we call a war on terror is letting the terrorists win their war of terrorising each of us, as we no
longer have those rights.
We then discussed whether altering, with the new laws, the law that a person should be presumed innocent until
proven guilty was really just, and we believed it was not.
Although some people believed that terrorism is a serious act and a serious crime — and we all confirmed this —
we believed it was not an excuse for somebody to be so harshly dealt with, whether they are innocent or guilty.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
19
We then went on to talk about democracy and freedom for the people. One of our speakers, Matthew Frizzell,
agreed with the current legislation, saying that it helped to clear Australia of terrorism in all its forms. Clara then
went on to say that the legislation would be reviewed in 2010 and would be repealed in 2015, but many of us said
that if it is such serious legislation and if it infringes on so many of our rights, then it should simply not exist as it is
now.
We believed that the government should do something more about terrorism, but not what it is doing now. It should
deal with terrorism at its roots — in the country where it is born, where people are brainwashed and convinced to
be terrorists. We also believed that these new laws promoted terrorism, because people who were against these
antiterrorist laws felt the need to rebel against them and against the government, and there was every possibility that
more terrorists would be born out of this.
The CHAIR — Delegate, your time has expired. Well done.
Group 2
Mr KHOURY — I am Oliver from group 2 and from Swinburne Senior Secondary College. Our
discussion started pretty much in free flow. We looked at what everyone thought to begin with, and the people were
all too happy to present their opinions. We finished by looking at all the questions that were supposed to guide us,
and from that we have decided on what was important in our discussions and what our group thought.
We unanimously agreed that the legislation should be repealed. We did not feel that it would fulfil its intention for
the most part, although some of us did think that the legislation would fulfil what the government intended it to. We
also discussed the difference between democratic and human rights, as our constitution defines them differently, as
do most, and we discussed the ramifications of that.
We also discussed the extent to which we thought the legislation should be reformed after it had been repealed.
There were varying opinions on the degree and the extent to which they should be reformed. Some people thought
we should just scrap them, and some people thought there were certain aspects of the legislation that should be
reformed, especially the part that prevents detainees from seeing their families, and that was a particularly strong
feeling amongst the group.
Most of our decisions were unanimous, especially our agreement that the legislation impedes our rights and that the
legislation should be repealed.
The CHAIR — Well done, delegate.
Group 3
Mr BLAKE — My name is Peter Blake. I am from Bairnsdale Secondary College, and I am from
group 3. We all agreed that antiterrorism legislation is undemocratic and should be changed. We did not discuss all
the questions. We mainly discussed questions 1 and 3.
I will start with question 1:
Does the obligation to protect the community justify creating new legislation to deal with terror suspects in the current criminal justice
system?
We think the legislation should not be as intense. For example, there is no need for the control order. Instead of
control orders we could have higher security in airports, medical centres and other places.
Question 3 asked: is it likely the legislation will lead to particular individuals or communities being targeted? If so,
what role should federal and state government play in addressing the issue? It is likely that either way the
legislation will not interfere with different races. If someone is walking down the street, a policeman could arrest
them and put them into jail just because of their looks. The media should be controlled because a lot of people do
not have the information they need. They think all Islamic people are terrorists and they are afraid of them. Racial
abuse should be stopped, and I particularly mean things like the Cronulla riots in New South Wales. Australians are
ignorant; they think they know what they are talking about because of what they read in the media, but they do not
have all the background details.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
20
We mainly talked about how people from the Middle East are targeted in the community. One of the members of
our group talked about when she came to Melbourne. One of her friends was wearing a scarf and was kicked off a
tram because of the way she looked. That was just after the attacks which took place on 11 September. We were
pretty appalled to hear that.
We think the current legislation is adequate. The main things that need to be addressed include increased
intelligence because although the system is okay, security should be strengthened not by putting people in jail but
by strengthening security measures. Evidence should be used in order to detain people. Under the legislation people
are denied their human rights. People should be able to choose a lawyer instead of the government giving them a
lawyer who may have a different view to the person who has been detained. Also the person may not be a good
lawyer.
Group 4
Mr BALLARD — We had a very heated discussion. It was intense but it was a lot of fun. I would like to
thank the other members of the group for the discussion. There were a couple of conflicting views. I really admire
the two guys in the group who went against the majority. It was really cool and made for some very good
discussion.
We did not so much follow the questions as let the discussion flow freely. At the beginning everyone stated their
opinion on the morning’s speakers and the overall issue, and the discussion went from there. In the end we decided
that there is a definite need for the Howard government to do something about the threat of terrorism in Australia
today. We also believe the legislation went through the legislative process democratically. However, we believe
some of the content of the bill is not wholly democratic. All our decisions were unanimous. A decision was made
that perhaps suspected terrorists who are in detention should be given the same rights as any other criminal in the
judicial process, but that was not completely agreed upon; there was some dissent in the group on that.
We also had a discussion on the effect of these measures on the public, particularly on the Islamic community in
Australia. We were lucky to have in the group Shugla who is a Muslim, which really gave us a personal perspective
on that issue. While some of the group did not agree that this legislation would have a negative effect on the
Australian public, many of us did, and that was an argument that came up a couple of times. In the end, we decided
that the legislation is not wholly democratic; there are things in it that we all had issues with. We believe the
legislation should be reconsidered.
Group 5
Mr HOLMES — We were split on the whole topic. There were 11 of us and 6 were for and 5 were
against. During the hour we discussed our ideas and opinions and wrote them down, and I will present both sides.
Some members believe the legislation will not harm the everyday Aussie but is saving us, and therefore the current
law is working.
On the negative side we believe it is better to have this law rather than collecting bodies off the street. We thought
that if the law is going to be reviewed in 5 years and will lapse in 10 years, then that is a good thing. It is something
the government has done to affirm the situation. We know it is not going to stay this way for ever; it is not going to
be enshrined in the constitution. We felt this was our safety net against terrorism and in particular against attacks on
Australian soil.
On the other side, the legislation will not help but will in fact impact on our lives. Some members wanted
something to happen but not this legislation; possibly some amendments to current legislation. Some members
think it is un-Australian and will take away people’s rights, so they would be treated as criminal without proof.
They believe the Attorney-General should not have the power to choose which group is a terrorist group. Rather it
should be on a vote from somebody else, perhaps an independent body. They decided that protection, protection,
protection and prevention, prevention, prevention were the best ideas for the bill.
Group 6
Miss RAHIMOVSKA — We just let our discussion flow freely. Everyone was just contributing in the
group. Here are just some general comments made by the group. The current law does not prevent an attack; if
there is suspicion then people should be detained in a civil manner. Legislation affects people psychologically. It
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
21
may convince people to think otherwise. Aligning ourselves to other countries which do not align themselves with
the presumption of innocence was raised. People should be treated in a uniform manner, as all differences need to
be accounted for, whether we are fighting a war or not. The legislation brings to the fore the possibility of an attack.
It does not prevent possible terrorists from conducting an attack.
Legislation recognises fear, not instils it; therefore the protection of citizens is necessary. As a community we
should ratify the piece of legislation which Parliament has ratified. Presumption of innocence should prevail. It is a
step in the right direction, the legislation to prevent terrorists from conducting attacks. You should be able to
question suspicious people. Prevention is a lead to a cure. You will never be able to stop terrorism. What if
terrorists are not detained? A 48-hour detention period is long enough. Persons should be kept in humane
conditions. It is not democratic because it is not compliant to basic human rights. Detention should be for as long a
period as is within reason. No direct family contact, but notification to family that the person is detained. Will the
legislation lead the government to its intended aim? The government has an obligation to act on terrorism. The
largest discussion occurred regarding the need for more contact hours for terrorists and their family during
detention periods.
The following are just some basic comments made by members of the group individually. There should be
reasonable suspicion for detention of possible terrorists. It is a reasonable response to the threat of terrorism yet, all
in all, it is not going to stop terrorist attacks. Intelligence needs to play a greater role to combat terrorism. Charges
should be made clearer to suspects. Sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to benefit. Current Australian
values should prevail. An inquisitorial system needs to be put in place. There is a need to be smarter, not weaker.
Detention periods should be longer and suspects should have basic human rights. Legislation should have
amendments such as reasonable grounds to be detained. Legislation is justified because it protects the community.
Possible terrorists should be detained for the same period and should be treated more humanely. Sometimes an
extreme approach is required to combat terrorism.
The CHAIR — We have two representatives from group 7.
Group 7
Miss HAMBLING — We had a vote to see what everyone thought. About 50 per cent were undecided
and 50 per cent were for the bill. We started off talking about the effects the bill would have on ourselves. We
concluded that it would not necessary affect us individually but it would affect Australia as a whole. We talked
about losing Australia’s national identity, because lots of people come to Australia for the freedoms that we offer
and the human rights that we have, and we believe this law will impinge on those rights. Also, we talked about
people becoming maybe demonised, for example, Muslims. They may be coming here to escape their country for
these reasons, and then they might come to Australia and just be confronted with them again. Another point that we
came up with was that it will not necessarily make a difference on terrorism and it has been proven that the law at
the moment is not good enough. For example, Jack Thomas was prosecuted under the current laws.
Mr HEATH — One of the questions that our group looked at in quite some detail was question 2: will the
legislation lead to the government’s intended outcomes? We basically said that with suicide bombers this would
not actually have any effect because these are people who are dedicated to a particular cause or process, and so
having such legislation would not be effective. We talked about whether terrorism occurs due to an inability to
express political views and looked at other ways of actually combating terrorism at a base level. We did
acknowledge that there were opposing views and we said one key idea behind this was the safety of the
community. We also looked at the idea of fear prevention, and considered whether having this legislation would
make society safer in terms of how we actually felt, and whether we would have less fear, thus enabling society to
progress because we would not be feeling as inhibited or would feel less of a target for terrorists. At the end of the
discussion there was still a majority of people who supported the repeal process, but there were still also a few that
were undecided.
The CHAIR — Well done to all of you.
PART C: THE CAMPAIGN CONCLUDES
Soapbox
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
22
The CHAIR — Delegates, I call you to order and welcome you back from lunch. I trust that you had at
least a pleasant walk in the sunshine and that you are now prepared for what I consider to be one of the most
exciting parts of the day — that is, the soapbox. As I said to you before, this is your last opportunity to convince
your fellow delegates of the sheer correctness and high moral ground of the views that you hold and the way they
should vote in the upcoming referendum.
I am going to start off by suggesting that delegates have 2 minutes each. That is rule 1. Rule 2 is that delegates
should not come back for a second turn if there is someone new — in other words, if there are people who are new
and have not had an opportunity to speak, I will call them in preference to calling someone for a second turn, just to
try to make sure as many people as possible get the chance to have their voices heard. It is my pleasure to ask those
who would like to speak on the soapbox to come and take a position here, and I will call the first delegate. Who is
going to be the brave first delegate?
Miss SATARI — Most of my reasons for scrapping this legislation have probably already been
mentioned or they will be mentioned by the following speakers. I just want to raise one point. Back in 2001 when
America was attacked on September 11, George Bush was in the position that he had to take action. He made the
choice of bombing another country. It seemed like a great idea then — you just bomb the country, get the person,
and the whole organisation will fall. It is five years on, but where are we now? If the same thing happens with this
legislation, Australia is going to be in just one big rut.
Mr ASSAAD — The Howard government’s antiterrorist legislation is not only ruthless but totally
unnecessary. There is no question at all that these laws are less than adequate to address the level of threat from
terrorism that Australia faces. The people of this country are being deliberately and systematically misled and
deceived by a government manufacturing a climate of fear in order to facilitate the passing of this dangerous and
undemocratic legislation. We will always need to look at these laws because we are dealing with terrorists but not
at the expense of the civil liberties of Australia in this rugged democracy.
Miss SPROULE — I am opposing the legislation. We should definitely scrap it on the grounds that
Australia is built on the basis of a pluralistic society — a society where we can agree that more than one idea can be
right. I am not saying that terrorism is an idea that should be accepted, because I do not believe it is. I do not believe
that the tiny minority of extremists who are a part of the Islamic religion should be able to cause a stigma to be
attached to the rest of the people who follow the Muslim faith with integrity and true to the original Koran. I also
believe that it is fear for fear’s sake. It is legislation for the sake of pretending that they are tough on crime when
they really are not.
Miss TABAK — Australia is probably one of the most powerful and diplomatic legal systems, and the
Australian police force is immensely efficient. This legislation would be undiplomatic and thus result in a decline in
the power of the legal system and the Australian police force. It would be a total contradiction of the values and
morals that were in place before the legislation came in.
Mr HOLMES — I would like to touch on the terrorism issue as a whole. I personally believe there is only
one way to stop terrorism from infiltrating Australian shores and that is to pull out any affiliation with the United
States and any affiliation with the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the only way we will stop the
hatred towards Australia by Islamic extremists coming to our shores.
Mr LIU — I would like to focus on the preventative detention orders, which are a section of the
antiterrorism legislation. Basically I cannot see why they are in it. A person who is suspected of committing a
terrorist offence in the next 14 days can be held for this period of time, yet they have not done anything wrong.
They have not committed an offence; it is merely predicted that they may do so sometime in the future — they may
not even do it. In Australia, in Victoria, we jail someone because they have done something wrong. Yet in this
situation they clearly have not done something but we are detaining them because maybe they have done
something, we are not sure of it. We simply cannot do that. Worse still, if you want to challenge your innocence,
you have to prove you are innocent. This clearly contradicts one of our fundamental Australian principles — that is,
the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Worse still, detainees are not provided with full reasons for their detention, merely a concise summary of the
reasons for their detention. That makes it very difficult for them to create an effective defence. An ineffective
defence clearly undermines their right to a fair and public hearing, which is one of the articles of the International
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
23
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. With that in mind, I think it is very clear that the antiterrorism legislation,
particularly with regard to the preventative detention orders, should not go ahead.
Mr KHOURY — There were a few points I would like to make. I am not going to argue for or against the
legislation being repealed; there are just a few points I would like to put out there. Philip Barker, who was sitting
over here, said that there is no other law in Australia that allows police to coerce someone to give information, but
that is not quite true. The year 12 legal studies textbook has a right to silence chapter on the new legislation passed
in Victoria regarding the gangland killings. They are having such strife trying to get this code of silence broken to
stop impeding their investigation. Police officers can apply to a Supreme Court justice to give them a warrant to
coerce a person suspected of performing organised crime to give them the information they require.
Another point I wanted to raise was the talk about why it will be the Muslim community that is going to get the
most negative response from this sort of legislation and how it is only the Muslims who have terrorist organisations
based around their religion. I thought about it and I looked at the other, larger terrorist threats around the world.
You have the Chechens and Russians who are fighting. If you think about it, you are not going to expect a Chechen
to come to Melbourne and blow up, I do not know, the Parliament building — it is just not something you would
think of. You would not expect the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers to come up and blow something up. I just think it is
that the Islamic extremists attack not only where we associate them in the Middle East but also across national
borders in the USA, Spain, Africa — all those different places. We have this association with them being an
international threat. They were my points.
I would like to finish with a quote, it is an old one but I think it is relevant:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will desire neither and lose both.
That was said by Benjamin Franklin. I think delegates should use it in any essays on this topic.
The CHAIR — And if you want to buy a nice Christmas present for somebody and raise some money for
Amnesty International, they have got it on a T-shirt. All my guys will get one for Christmas. Now they all know
that are getting a Christmas present!
Ms JAMA — I feel that enforcing this legislation would be detrimental to Australia’s current policies and
subsequently to our values. I feel in this time of immense uncertainty that the last things we should change are our
fundamental rights.
Mr DALY — The current legislation, the Anti-Terrorism Act, should either be amended or repealed
immediately, because it infringes all of our rights as individuals. The control orders which infringe on individuals
rights and the very core of justice are not only perverse but go against tradition and everything that we hold dear in
our current use of law. This tradition has been long and well established for a reason, and we cannot simply and
quickly create legislation which goes against this without just cause, and the government has provided no just cause
for this.
We all know that terrorism is clear and apparent in our world, but no clear, detailed threat has been made against
Australia. There has been a medium threat for terrorism in the last four years, and this has gone unchanged. Yet in
the last year — almost immediately — this new legislation has come about. We need a justified reason for this, and
we have not been given one by the government.
The terrorist threat against Australia and the reasons for this legislation seem unjustified. Justice and the order
which has been established cannot be torn apart and fabricated, as has been done so quickly, without thought,
consideration and deliberation. Terror suspects are just that — they are suspects; they have not been found guilty.
They are people who have been charged with a crime and can face a year in jail without seeing their relatives or
anyone they hold dear and without many of the basic rights of other prisoners. Whether they are guilty or innocent
should not be the point. The point is that it is a perversion of justice, and if an innocent person is jailed over this,
then they may suffer as a result.
We may or may not know that David Hicks is guilty, but the point is this: he has been held captive and is suffering
in Guantanamo Bay. Whether he is guilty or not, he deserves the right — as we all do as individuals — to have
freedom of speech.
The CHAIR — The delegate’s time has expired.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
24
Mr BALLARD — Something needs to be done about terrorism today — I think it is fair enough to say
that everyone here agrees with that — but to put in the measures outlined in this legislation is not the way to do
that. I feel that this is a knee-jerk reaction by the government and not the best way to combat the threat of terrorism,
a threat which has been overblown. If we are worried about the loss of Australian lives, let us look at our road toll,
at cancer and at the environment, for God’s sake! There are bigger threats to our way of life than terrorism.
I think we have to ask ourselves: is the government trying to make the world a better place, or is it trying to
manipulate our fear and our rights to try to protect us from some non-specific threat?
Miss SINGH — These laws will not provide Australians with any greater security. What we actually fear
is terrorism, yet we have not attempted to understand why people turn to terrorism. We have not worked to
understand different points of view. We have reacted to terrorism with violence. We have not reacted in a mature
way to learn, to discuss, to understand and to accept criticism of ourselves, and to change and improve ourselves so
that we do not drive one sector of our community to terror.
Miss MURRAY — I want to say how great it is to be here and to hear everyone’s different opinions about
this really important topic. I agree completely with what everyone is saying, because I think it is really important
that everyone can speak out about what they believe in, and we are really lucky to be given this opportunity to do
so. I cannot press the point hard enough that every single person can make a difference. You can look at history as
proof of that — look at Hitler and Stalin. I agree with what the first person this morning spoke about — about fear
itself and how it manifests into what happens as a society and as a world.
You can look at communism and at how the USA reacted to it — the Cold War and the Vietnam War — and the
same thing is happening with Iraq. It is people who can speak rationally and sensibly about this, as we have all
done here today, who really do have something to offer.
Mr BAMPTON — In the end it all comes down to defence and what we have to prevent terrorists from
coming here and attacking what we have worked so hard to achieve as a society. This new law protects us from
that, at least in the prosecution. Sure, no-one and nothing is going to be able to stop us from being hurt by a terrorist
attack, because it is going to happen whether you like it or not, but these new laws will assist in the prosecution and
apprehension of these terrible people.
Mr CORNESCHI — One part of the legislation that I particularly did not like is the lack of rights. Terror
suspects should have the same rights as any other people who go to jail or are arrested. They should also have such
rights as being able to stay silent if they want to and not be forced to say things.
I also want to say that I am grateful to be here, and that I like to hear many opinions about this topic. Thanks.
Miss TABAK — This very country is probably one of the very few countries in the entire world that has a
proud culture of tolerance of ethnic and religious sects. If this legislation is passed, this pride and culture will decay
as the Islamic minorities would be subject to punishment that is only meant for the corrupt few.
Mr OLDFIELD — Firstly, I am against what most of you guys think. If the legislation proves to be
non-preventive in the next 5 years, then that is why the government has said that will be looked at again in 5 years
and possibly scrapped in 10 years. If it is non-preventive it would be scrapped — it is as simple as that — so we
will give it a try. If it is proved to be preventive, would you then believe that the ends have justified the means in
that the moral rights of a handful of terror suspects — we are talking about 13-or-so people since it has been
introduced, and they have been kept for how long? — have been infringed to protect the rights of 20 million
Australians so they feel safe when visiting popular memorials and things like that?
Mr HEATH — We need to look at the deeper issue of terrorism and why terrorism occurs. This piece of
legislation will not deal with one of the root causes which I believe causes terrorism — that is, that a particular
country’s political structure is unable to allow people to explore their own political views, as we have explored
them today.
If such a system were able to be created and implemented in other countries, terrorism would be a lesser problem
than we see it today. Opportunities also need to be provided for people to come together to discuss and have an
opportunity to gain a knowledge and understanding of each other, because this generation we live in with fear of
other cultures — namely, the Islamic, which is completely unfounded and ridiculous — is because we do not
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
25
understand them. If we could come together and learn about different cultures and different people through a
culture of understanding and knowledge, then this fear could be broken down and we could live together in a better
society.
This, plus the ineffectiveness of this piece of legislation in dealing with the root cause of terrorism, and the fact that
it completely contradicts our form of democracy, means that I will be voting against it and voting for the complete
repeal of antiterror laws. I urge you all to do the same.
Mr WOJNAR — People have been focusing on the legislation infringing our rights. Just exactly what
rights does it infringe on specifically? If we can find out what rights it takes away, then we can find out how to
improve the legislation rather than abolishing it altogether.
I think we all agree that there is a matter at hand and that we have to take action to find something to do. Some
people might think we can abolish it and do nothing, but I believe we should do something. The government
obviously thought that we should take this into account and do something and that is why the legislation was put
into place. We should not repeal the whole legislation, but maybe reform it to make it acted upon in the community
and society. Thank you.
Miss EVANS — Terrorists inflict terror and fear — that is basically what the word ‘terrorist’ means, but
this new legislation also inflicts that same fear. By singling out the Muslim and Islamic community here in
Australia, this law can make them live in fear. If an innocent person can be arrested and taken, then it is not taking
away the fear in our society; it is simply inflicting it on a different group of people.
Someone said before that there is basically a five-year trial for this law. I do not think that is the way to decide on
this law, because imagine the people who are arrested and who are innocent in that five-year period. If in 10 years
time we decide, ‘Hey, we made a mistake, it is not good’, and it is taken away, what happens to those people who
were affected by this law during that five-year period? Do you simply say, ‘Sorry, we made a mistake’? There are
different ways of going about deciding this kind of thing, and I believe that is not the way to do it.
Miss BROWNING — Whether or not this legislation actually has an effect needs to be considered. If this
legislation has absolutely no effect, then it is being implemented in society to create a different kind of feeling,
which is the feeling of having a safer society. If that is what this legislation is for, so the government and the people
feel like they are in a safer society and so the people hold onto this government to keep the ‘safe society’ that they
have created through false legislation which is not actually having any effect, then we need to consider why we
have this. We need something that will actually bring a safe society, not something that will give just the feeling of
a safe society.
The CHAIR — Well said.
Miss SPROULE — A young man up there who spoke before said to the Chair that the people who make
these decisions do not have a personal vested interest in them. It is not their children who will be stopped in the
streets, strip-searched at the airports or silenced when they are yelling. The people who make these decisions and
laws do not have a personal interest in them; if they did, they would probably think twice before making them.
Another young man today in the small discussion groups said that where he lives people do not worry about
terrorism. That made me think, ‘That is so lucky. I wish that where I come from and where I live we did not have to
worry about terrorism and about the laws that we make about terrorism’.
I wish we were all like that. These laws do not help us to be protected and do not stop us from thinking about this
stuff. It brings it to the forefront and makes people scared, and when people are scared they are backed into a corner
and do things that they would otherwise not do.
Mr MBALA — Today we all know what terrorism is and we know what it does. We know how it affects
certain people and we know what happens afterwards, pretty much. But the point is that we do not know what
caused it. We know for sure that Australia did not have anything to do with causing terrorism; Australia did not
have anything to do with making anybody attack anybody else. So my point is: Australia should step out.
A couple of years ago Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist because he was fighting for black people’s
rights. Now he is considered a hero. Let me tell you something:. terrorists have their reasons, and since we do not
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
26
know them, we cannot take a step in attacking or taking somebody’s side. My point is: Australia should just step
out, because it did not have anything to do with it in the first place. Thank you.
The CHAIR — Beautifully said.
Mr HOLMES — I really want to clarify something that a lot of you have not touched on today.
Everybody seems to be focusing on Islamic extremists, but I really want to point out to you that it is not just people
from the Arab nations who are terrorists. Like one of the speakers said before: Chechnyans, Russians and Africans
have been terrorising their own countries for years with civil wars. Anybody can become a terrorist. IRA members
were Northern Irish and Catholic; they had no affiliation with Islam at all. Please do not single out one race and one
religion as having terrorists.
Miss STOJKOVSKI — Today we have been talking a lot about fear because, naturally, terrorists create
fear in a lot of places. Australia is acting from fear. Australia is afraid of what will happen to its citizens, and I
would like to believe that our government is trying to do the best it can to provide safety for our country. Whether
the new legislation does that or not is what we are debating today.
There are some things in it that go against human rights. You would hope that the government would see that
because it put up our human rights in the first place. But I want to touch on the fact that Australia is acting in fear.
Australia does not want its citizens to be in trouble. I think this started from Australia taking sides with America. I
know that acting with the biggest nation in the world is probably good for our economy, but I think Australia’s
following America’s footsteps was a big mistake, because now we are in a hole with this war on terrorism, when
really we could have stayed on side with America but not acted so much with it and then not had this big threat of
terrorism.
The CHAIR — Well said.
Mr FRENKEN — These new terror laws are a step in the right direction. Today we have been caught up
in a political whirlwind of discussions about these new terror laws. We are the vision of the future; we are
tomorrow’s leaders. We need to understand that the fear of terrorism was already there. We are simply removing
the frosted glass, looking past that facade and showing our fear more physically now. The fear was always there,
however now it is being realised. Our country has decided to step up.
Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has decided to politically step up and announce that something needs to be done
about the terror laws, and I think we need to help the Liberal Australian government push in the right direction,
which young people believe is the right direction, to achieving national security for our country.
Mr MOHAMMED — I personally do not agree with the antiterrorism legislation, but I do support the
war on terror. People may think it causes a lot of conflict; however, beneath the surface it has benefited a lot of
people.
George Bush invaded Iraq and caused a civil war. However, he did free a minority group there. He freed the
Kurdish villages and he saved the Kurdish people, who were under attack from Saddam Hussein, from a genocide.
Protection, protection, protection; prevention, prevention, prevention.
Mr MILES — I would like to take up a point that was made earlier by Des Moore, that there are some
things that we really need to cover in making such legislation as this. At the moment not all aspects of terrorism are
covered by legislation, and if we are not going to push forward legislation such as what we have now, we need to
make amendments to deal with what seems to be the main problem here, which is the human rights sector. If we
can make small amendments to that part of the legislation and if we can push for some protection with such a thing
as antiterrorism legislation, we are going to have a much better society.
People do not realise the balance that we currently have, and we need to have a proper look at it. Some are saying
that innocent people are going to be arrested and held, but if you compare that to the thousands of people who
could be killed by terrorism, you have a clearer perspective of things. Thank you.
Miss SATARI — A lot of people today have touched on the topic of fear, but I do not think anyone
actually understands what fear is. When there is a bombing in Spain or something, here in Australia we think,
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
27
‘Someone might threaten us, and our government is going to make laws now that will protect us’, but fear is not
just something that happens far away; it could happen here.
I was born in Afghanistan, and fear is when you walk down the street and you are scared of being bulldozed. Fear
is when your dad could be dragged off to join the military to fight for some stupid cause. The legislation we have
today is not going to get rid of that fear. Fear is not something you can just physically kick out of your life. That is
my point.
The CHAIR — Well done to all delegates for participating. I know as Chair I am supposed to be
impartial, but I have to say to Emmanuel that he is absolutely right to mention the difference between what is a
freedom fighter and what is a terrorist. It is an important point to make, because it all depends upon your
perspective, does it not? Well done to Emmanuel; a very good point.
Official closing
The CHAIR — It is my pleasure now to introduce to you Mr Andrew McIntosh. Andrew is the shadow
Attorney-General and a member of the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party — and quite a good bloke!
Mr McINTOSH — Thank you, Chair. This is a great privilege for me. I think this is the first time I have
addressed the Parliament from this spot because this is where the Premier sits. Normally the closest to this spot I get
to speak in this place is from the other side of the table because we are in opposition.
It is a great privilege to be the last speaker in the Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention. It is also a great
thrill to be here in the presence of Mary Gillett, who is a great friend of mine, notwithstanding we sit on either side
of the house and often hold our views and express them very strenuously in this place — and they are put very
forthrightly. Mary and I remain good friends, and no doubt we will remain in contact even after she leaves this
Parliament, because she is resigning as a result of a number of years service in this place.
I would like to mention that Mary had a job which is probably unsung in the community. She was the chair of the
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee which is a terribly important committee. It does not get much
publicity; it is only when something controversial goes wrong, I suppose, that it gets a bit of publicity. But it is a
very important committee because it scrutinises every single bill that comes into this place to be debated, usually —
9 times out of 10 — prior to the debate taking place. It scrutinises the bills to see whether the issues of the rights
and liberties of the Parliament and, more particularly now, human rights are being impacted upon by the legislation
that is dealt with in this place.
I am a member of that committee and one of the most traumatic times in my life was when we were dealing with
the antiterrorism laws. It was critical because as you know it is an important law and strong views are held in
relation to these matters. During the course of the meetings of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee a
number of academics, lawyers and ordinary citizens made submissions to our committee as to why this law should
be changed, or in some cases stopped. It was a difficult process to come to one’s own views and then determine a
collective view as a party in adopting this.
At the end of the day the antiterrorism laws went through this Parliament. Exactly the same law that went through
the federal Parliament had to be passed by the Victorian Parliament and all the other state parliaments because we
have a federation, and issues relating to law and order have always been the preserve of the state parliaments. So it
was not just something that the commonwealth Parliament had to pass. There had to be agreement between the
federal government and the state government. The state government then introduced that legislation. Likewise,
notwithstanding that it got a lot of support, there were a number of concerns with that legislation.
But my involvement with antiterrorism laws actually predates even the discussion in relation to preventative
detention orders. I was in London, courtesy of the Parliament of Westminster, about 18 months ago and the same
version of this law was going through the English Parliament. This was prior to the terrorist attack in London in
July of last year. In a different sort of environment these laws were being debated in the English Parliament, and
they actually bounced between the House of Commons and the House of Lords about three times. A number of
amendments were made by the House of Lords that actually impacted directly upon the legislation in London.
One of the real concerns in London was picked up precisely in the Australian legislation and indeed in the state
legislation — the opportunity to put a brake on some of our intelligence agencies in the more draconian aspects of
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
28
the law. Indeed, you mentioned not meeting the Prime Minister because he is too busy doing other things. We
actually had a meeting scheduled with the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, at 10 Downing Street. Regrettably he
could not attend that meeting because they had called a division in the United Kingdom Parliament on that very
bill, so he had to disappear out of 10 Downing Street and unfortunately we never got to meet him. We got to have a
few drinks at his house and had dinner there, but we did not quite get to meet the Prime Minister.
But the import of what this is about is that laws that go through this place should be scrutinised. They should be
scrutinised by both government and opposition members. It is important that everybody has their say, but most
importantly, in a democracy, the more people out there that are talking about crucial pieces of legislation the better
off we will be as a democracy.
Notwithstanding that you can have strong views about one side of the argument or the other, as long as you are able
to present those in a forum and your views can be expressed maturely and rationally and accepted as such, then we
will all be better off. If you were to come into this Parliament at question time you would see probably the worst
behaviour you could ever imagine. People will yell, they will heckle and they will interject during question time,
when both opposition and government members can ask their own questions of ministers. It is an important part —
it is probably the most sacred part — of the Parliament, which is asking questions of the government and holding it
accountable in relation to whatever matters on behalf of the people of Victoria.
As I said, views are held strongly and they are strongly put, and you will see some of the worst behaviour in here.
But at the end of the day it is surprising how many good friends you leave, or have, in this place; I am not leaving,
hopefully, subject to the next state election. It is surprising how many good friendships you develop on your own
side and indeed on the other side. As I said, I have a very good relationship with the Chair of this convention, Mary
Gillett, and I certainly wish her well, and I look forward to see her in her retirement. Hopefully I will continue on as
a member of Parliament after the next state election.
I congratulate you all on your participation in this Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention. I certainly
congratulate Gary and his department on behalf of the opposition; he can certainly take back from me my personal
thanks and the thanks of the opposition to Minister Kosky for putting on this constitutional convention.
Can I just say that I am here instead of Ted Baillieu. I will not be too flippant, but Ted Baillieu is about five times
taller than I am. It is the long and the short of the Liberal Party. He is the tallest member of the parliamentary
Liberal Party; I, regrettably, am the shortest, so I have to play second fiddle. As you would understand occurs in the
lead-up to a state election, Ted has a number of matters that he has to attend to. He apologises that he could not be
here today, but he certainly sends his best wishes.
Can I just finish on this note: I will paraphrase a famous political scientist who was a member of Parliament
200 years ago to try to put it in modern parlance; it may lose a lot if I actually say the original words. I will
paraphrase Edmund Burke, who once said that for evil to prevail good men and women should do nothing. You are
the next generation. When I am sitting here as a member of Parliament I am accountable to each and every one of
you. It is incumbent on each of you to hold me and my colleagues accountable for the things that we do in this
place, including the antiterrorism legislation. If we are not adhering to your wishes, you have every right to turf us
out. Hopefully through all of this process of consultation or otherwise we can actually get this legislation right. It is
a great privilege to be a member of Parliament.
I was in the house when a number of retiring members were given the opportunity of speaking during the last
sitting last week. It is just amazing how each and every one of them reflects the privilege it is to be a member of
Parliament. It is a great opportunity; it is the most fascinating experience you will ever go through in your life. It
changes, it moves, it adapts. I was walking the street putting envelopes in letterboxes this morning, I am speaking
to you this afternoon, and I have to go and address a professional conference this evening. It is an interesting life, it
is a fascinating life, but at the end of the day we can only do it because you say we can do it and so long as we are
implementing the laws that you want us to implement. If you like what we do, fine, but for God’s sake hold us
accountable for those things that we do not do well.
One of the things in relation to antiterrorism was a personal concern of mine — the way it was implemented — but
certainly it had to be implemented. It was a necessity, and I think both sides of the house realised that in a modern
world. It is unfortunate, but at the end of the day I think it was a very democratic process that we went through in
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
29
determining our position here as a Victorian Parliament. With those words, thank you very much. I am very pleased
that I am the penultimate speaker in the closure of this constitutional convention. Thank you, Chair.
The CHAIR — I take the opportunity to thank Andrew for his kind remarks. This is probably a politically
incorrect story that I will tell. I think Andrew has stopped smoking. I first met Andrew when he asked, ‘Have you
got any cigarettes’, and I said, ‘Yeah’, and I thought this bloke has got to be all right.
He is a fine shadow Attorney-General. I appreciate his very honest remarks, and hope you do too. Andrew has
studied the law, and justice is his passion. You can imagine how challenging and confronting the passage of the
antiterrorism bill was for a number of us, regardless of what side of the house we were on. Andrew, I can report
back that it is clear these young people are far more competent than you or I will ever be, because they voted in a
landslide to repeal the legislation — it was 60 to 13.
In my very brief closing remarks I want to talk about what a privilege it has been to share this day and this
experience with you. I have been of Parliament for 10 years, and, as Andrew said, this is one of my few days left
until 25 November. If there is one thing I would like to say to you it is that over the 10 years I have had in public
life — and public life is a difficult life; as Andrew said, it is a life, it is not a job — I have learnt a couple of things
from wise constituents and wise colleagues. One is that if we want the best community and society we can hope
for, it must be everybody’s responsibility to replace fear with understanding, to replace ignorance with information,
and, ultimately, to replace tolerance with compassion. You have started that process today. I have watched you all
with some great personal delight talking about how important people’s rights and freedoms are and how damaging
fear can be. I want to reflect with you all that it is easy to make people frightened. It is so easy, particularly with
Australians, because you go, ‘Oh, they’re different’, and they say, ‘Yes, they are’.
It happened with my Italian grandparents, it happens with friends of mine who are Greek, it happens with friends of
mine who have come from different parts of the world. For a while ‘different’ is a bit scary and it takes Australians
a while to adjust. You seem to be very fast learners about fear. It is just not worth having, because there is more that
brings us together than should ever, ever put us apart.
Congratulations to the organisers, you work very hard and you do a fantastic job. Congratulations to the teachers,
too — I hope you, delegates, remember to say thanks to them for inspiring you and encouraging you. And also to
your beleaguered parents. I have a 16-year-old going on 17-year-old son, an 18-year-old daughter and a nearly
20-year old son. If I could lock my baby boy in a cupboard until he was 25, believe me: if it did not trespass on his
human rights, I would. Don’t forget to say thank you to all the people you need to say thank you to. I hope you
have had a sensational time.
Delegates applauding.
Convention adjourned 3.16 p.m.
9 October 2006
Victorian Schools Constitutional Convention
30